Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

PREVENTION OF FRAUD (REGISTRATION)

Mr. Michael Stephen presented a Bill to make provision for the registration of certain interests in, and other information relating to, vehicles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

National Lottery

Motion made, and Question proposed,, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): For the convenience of the House I thought that I would speak at not too great a length, and cover the facts and figures of the lottery so that we know exactly where we are officially. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will want to raise important issues during the debate. If I catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair I shall, with the leave of the House, seek to wind up the debate and cover any issues not mentioned in my opening remarks.
The national lottery was launched just over one month ago and has already gripped the public's imagination. The bare facts and statistics do not tell the whole story, but they are worth setting out at the beginning of the debate so that the House can appreciate the scale of what we are discussing today.
Camelot was informed that it would be running the national lottery at the end of May. By the launch date in mid-November, it had equipped, trained and established communications for 10,000 retailers. Since then, a further 1,250 outlets have been added to the retail network and, on average, 1,000 more will come on stream every month for the next two years. By the end of 1996, 40,000 retailers will be involved, either through on-line terminals for the main lotto game or as sellers of scratch cards and other instant games.
In the first month of the lottery, 206 million tickets have been sold and 3.5 million people have shared about £100 million in prizes. Some 35 people have won more than £100,000 each and five winners have become millionaires.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I know that my hon. Friend has only just started his speech, but the issue that I wish to raise is important for the country. When looking at the huge prize winnings, will my hon. Friend consider whether there could be a limit of, for example, £5 million on the top prize from now on? That would mean doing something about the roll-over effect, which has become horrendous and is tempting some people, particularly poor people, into buying more lottery tickets than they can possibly afford.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend certainly makes an important point, which concerns many people. With that prescience which is so typical of my hon. Friend, he has foreseen a subject to which I shall refer later. If he will allow me, I shall deal with it at length later—it is an important point.
Of that turnover of £200 million—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister has almost conceded that there should be a ceiling on the amount of money gained by lottery winners. How does that stand with the Prime Minister's assertion yesterday, when we complained about the gas board chief receiving a mammoth salary, that the Government did not believe in ceilings for top people?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman's interesting interjection was based on a false premise. I apologise if I misled him, but I was not conceding that there should be


a ceiling. I said that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) had raised an important subject—to which I will return.
Of that £200 million, roughly one half has been paid back in prizes. Some £53.4 million has been paid into the national lottery distribution fund—the account in which proceeds are held for good causes. Some £25 million has been paid to the Exchequer in lottery duty. Some £10 million has been paid to the retailers—including many small, independent businesses—in commission on ticket sales. About £10 million has been retained by the operator, Camelot, to cover operating costs and contribute to its return on investment. Over the full seven years of Camelot's operating licence, some 27 per cent. to 28 per cent. of the turnover will go to good causes, which I shall come to in a moment.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I wish that my hon. Friend would change his mind.

Mr. Sproat: I know my hon. Friend's views, particularly on one distributor. I imagine that he has in mind the Arts Council. The whole House is looking forward to his contribution, if he should catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
As I said, 50 per cent. will be returned to the players as prizes, and 12 per cent. will be paid in lottery duty to cover the retailers' commission and Camelot's operating costs and profit. For the sake of completeness, although I realise that most hon. Members are familiar with these aspects of the lottery, I should like to touch briefly on the arrangements for distributing its net proceeds.

Ms Kate Hoey: The Minister talked about the £10 million that Camelot already has. Can he say when he expects the start-up costs to be paid back?

Mr. Sproat: Pretty soon, is the short answer. I do not know the exact date, but Camelot is very tightly tied down in what it can do with the money. I shall find the exact date for the hon. Lady and, I hope, let her know later in the debate. Camelot is not even allowed to keep the money—or is unlikely to be able to—on overnight deposit. It must pay the money that it receives from the retailers to the fund as soon as it gets it. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying—if I am wrong, I shall correct this later—that small retailers do not have to give Camelot their money for ticket sales until the Wednesday, yet Camelot must pay it in to the Government fund the previous Tuesday. So it is tightly controlled.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister has not answered my hon. Friend's point. I believe that my hon. Friend was saying that if Camelot will get back its initial capital investment "pretty soon", in the Minister's words, from then on it will be making a profit all the way. Some people estimate that those profits will be as much as £1.5 billion over the next seven years of its franchise. Does not the Minister have any concern about the credibility of the lottery, as people will become very sick of it and feel no confidence in it if Camelot, for very little work once it is up and running—it has done that well and I give it credit for that—will be getting enormous sums of money? I think that the public will

become very disillusioned about that. Should not the Government look at their contract with Camelot a great deal more carefully?

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry if I misunderstood the point that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) was making. I thought that she was referring to the fact that Camelot gets money from the small shops and then hands it over. But it does that very quickly and it certainly is not able to make easy profits out of that by putting the money on deposit.
As for Camelot making a profit on the deal, I remind the House that Camelot is covering its investment, its current operating costs and its margins on only 5 per cent. That is very tight indeed. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] It is quite true that when the lottery is going well, 5 per cent. is worth more, but to go into business and say, "Without regard to what happens, we are going to operate on a fixed margin," is a considerable business risk. [Interruption.] We have all the time in the world, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall just, although I cannot promise to respond to every seated intervention—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We may have all the time in the world, but seated interventions are not practices of which I approve.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the Minister will explain something to me, because there might be a good explanation. It was broadcast that Virgin was prepared to do the lottery for nothing. If there is an alternative explanation, perhaps the Minister will give it to me.

Mr. Sproat: It is true that various versions, roughly approximate to what the hon. Gentleman said, were put out by the press, but they were based on something of a misunderstanding, because the contribution to good causes does not come out of what Camelot does or does not make in profit—I say "does not" make because its costs and profit are limited to 5 per cent. Whatever Camelot does, some 50 per cent. of the money paid by those who buy tickets goes in prizes. Once the prizes have been paid, the 12 per cent. to the Treasury has been paid, the 5 per cent. to the small shopkeepers, garages and supermarkets that sell the tickets has been paid and Camelot has its 5 per cent., whatever is left, which is roughly 27 per cent. to 28 per cent. of the total turnover—turnover being defined as the amount spent by punters buying tickets—is divided among the five good causes: the arts, sports, charities, the millennium fund and the national heritage memorial fund.
So I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the good causes get their money from that 28 per cent., not from what goes to Camelot, or, as would have happened, Mr. Branson. Although the details of the company that won the franchise were decided by the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery, my understanding—I have not seen the papers—is that Camelot's offer was better because it was running it at 5 per cent. of turnover, which was lower than Mr. Branson's offer. So the Camelot deal is better than Mr. Branson's on a strict arithmetical basis.

Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend mentioned that a 12 per cent. tax will be paid to the Government from the turnover of the lottery. Can he confirm that that return will not be confined to 12 per cent., because it is not only Camelot's profits that will be


taxable, but those of garages and shops selling the tickets, and if substantial prize winners invest their winnings, any interest or dividends that they receive will also be subject to tax? The total return to the Government will be significantly higher in the end than the 12 per cent. that my hon. Friend announced.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is quite right. Of course, there are other sources, which he has not mentioned, through which the Government will benefit—such as the increase in jobs that will be generated. Those who have the jobs will pay income tax on their salaries. So the Government do pretty well out of it, as do the prize winners. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who speaks for the Opposition, will tell me how grateful he is and how well the arts will do out of it. That, no doubt, will provoke a response from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
The five good causes are the arts, sports, heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of a third millennium. The bodies responsible for distributing the funds available in the five beneficiary areas are the four national Arts Councils of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the four national Sports Councils and the national heritage memorial fund, all of which already exist, and the National Lottery Charities Board and Millennium Commission, which are newly set up distribution bodies.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has been speaking of the good causes. Is he prepared to comment on Stephen Glover's article in last evening's edition of the Evening Standard, bearing in mind the casualties to the nation, who will not be good causes but heartbreaks?

Mr. Sproat: I did not read the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he can get me a copy during the debate—I very much doubt that any speeches will allow me to spend a minute looking at it—I shall gladly see whether I can answer him at the end of the debate.
I must make clear one important principle about the lottery. Lottery money is intended to be additional to and not a substitute for existing Government funding. That means that the proceeds paid into the national lottery distribution fund will not be considered alongside other Government expenditure during our annual discussions about resources. That money will not be taken away from the five good causes that the House agreed to support to finance other areas of Government spending, nor will it be used within those five areas as a substitute for existing Government provision. Lottery proceeds should not, therefore, be used to fund projects that would normally be funded from existing Government programmes.
For example, it would not be possible for the lottery to take on the running costs of one of our major art venues if it already obtains revenue support from the Arts Council, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will be glad to hear. Another example would be funding for the public lending library service, which local authorities have a statutory duty to support.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister says that there will be no substitution, but the Government seem already to have anticipated in the Budget the receipts that some of those organisations will get from the lottery. For example, the grant to the Sports Council was reduced this year and is

expected to reduce further in 1996-97, down to £48.9 million from £50.6 million this year. That is a large cut, when one takes into account inflation over the four-year period, so it would appear from the Budget that the Government, or at least the Treasury, are anticipating those receipts and discounting them by squeezing the Sports Council's budget. If the Government are not doing so, the Minister must say why he is so hard on the Sports Council in the Budget.

Mr. Sproat: It is always a pleasure to hear the h on. Gentleman speak on sport as opposed to art for a change.

Mr. Fisher: I am keen on sport.

Mr. Sproat: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen sportsman. Sport comes out of the Budget better—

Mr. Fisher: Not true.

Mr. Sproat: I shall explain clearly to the hon. Gentleman. The Sports Council grant has been cut by a very small amount, but we increased the amount that we are giving to the sponsorship scheme. We are maintaining the money through the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. The Sports Council is going through an exercise to squeeze all the money that is spent on what some might say is unnecessary bureaucracy and to channel it into grassroots sports. Not only has the total amount of Government giving for sport increased, but we shall spend the money in a more targeted way.

Mr. Dicks: I would not wish the Minister to mislead the House or those listening to the debate. The Arts Council did not get roughly the same; it got an increase that was twice the level of inflation. I cannot think of any other Government Department that was allocated that much—certainly not the pensioners and the people—but his colleague the noble Lord Gowrie said that it was not quite enough and all the luvvies were up in arms about it.

Mr. Sproat: It is certainly true that, in their wisdom, the Government decided to give an extra £5 million or so to the Arts Council. It is hard for me. One minute I am being criticised—wrongly as it happens—for cutting the grant to the Sports Council and the next for increasing the Arts Council grant. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has strong views on the matter and I look forward to his deploying them at greater length and no doubt with greater ferocity during the debate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Leaving aside opera for a second, a serious problem faces many small groups that will want to have created capital assets by the millennium, for example secular monasteries for people who are roofless or need companionship and activity, so that they can find somewhere within 40 or 50 miles where they will be accepted. They might be people with a history of alcoholism, mental illness or whatever. Capital costs over the next five years are unpredictable, but if it is a part of the millennium project to ensure that such places exist—using the Emmaus project, St. Mungo's and others—is there someone on the National Lottery Charities Board or at the Department to whom a small


informal alliance of such groups can talk, who will give them guidance on the right way to structure a flexible programme with a millennium-type target?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I should certainly be glad to speak to my hon. Friend as a first step and to work something out. People at the charities board and the Millennium Commission would be able to advise on the best way to structure an application for funds from one or both. Projects can be funded jointly by more than one board. My hon. Friend mentioned the millennium fund, so this might be a suitable time to refer to that subject.
The fund is one aspect of the lottery that is less widely understood than some others. The Millennium Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Queen to consider the best way to utilise the share of the lottery proceeds allocated to support projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. The commission has said that its purpose is to assist communities to mark that event and it will use its lottery money to encourage projects throughout the nation that enjoy wide public support and will stand as lasting monuments to this country's achievements.
The commission will make grants to four main types of project: first, about a dozen major capital projects throughout the United Kingdom, which will become landmarks to the 21st century; secondly, smaller capital projects of local significance; thirdly, a millennium festival, which will become the focus of celebrations in the year 2000; and fourthly, a bursary scheme that could be used to develop the skills and abilities of individuals.
To ensure that the commission has the fullest and widest range of ideas to consider as suitable national and local projects, it has decided to hold a national competition. That will get under way next month. Project sponsors will be invited to submit their proposals in January. They will have until the end of March to submit them and must also submit a more detailed application by the end of April. The successful projects should be announced before the end of July. The competition will be repeated on an annual basis beginning in September, although the time taken to develop and build the landmark projects clearly means that they will have to be approved in the next year or two. The commission is consulting on the form that a millennium festival might take and will publish its conclusions in the spring of next year.
Although the lottery has, so far, been a huge success, people understandably have a number of legitimate concerns. I shall now deal with two of them and will deal with any other concerns that hon. Members mention during the debate in my reply.

Mr. Tony Banks: I was trying to catch the Minister's eye before he went on to another subject. To return to the millennium festival and the proposals for it, what sort of input and suggestions can members of the public, interested organisations, Members of Parliament or anyone else make? From what the Minister said, it sounded as if only a small group of people—yet to be determined by the sound of it—will decide.

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry if I did not make the situation clear. It is complicated and I am conscious of the fact that, although I said that we have all the time in the world, we

do not. The Millennium Commission has already been set up and has nine members. One is the Secretary of State for National Heritage, another the President of the Board of Trade and Mr. Michael Montague is a third. He was selected by the then Leader of the Opposition to represent an all-party balance on the commission. The six other members—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) saying that he does not approve? I may have misheard and I know your objections to answers to seated observations, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister of course deliberately misunderstands me. I was not objecting in the slightest to Mr. Montague. However, I was querying the balance on the commission, when the Opposition are represented by one member and the Government appoint all the rest.

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry. It was not a case of deliberately misleading the hon. Gentleman. I did not hear what he said. I thought when he began muttering when I mentioned Mr. Montague that he was objecting to Mr. Montague. If the hon. Gentleman was not objecting to him, I should be very happy to take the correction.

Madam Deputy Speaker: This illustrates perfectly my objections to seated interventions. Perhaps the Minister had better resist the temptation to answer what he thought he heard.

Mr. Sproat: You are very wise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall follow that sage advice throughout the rest of this powerful speech.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), we thought that it was fair to have a member specifically selected by the Opposition. I quite see why the Opposition may say that they would like more members, but we are trying to make it a non-party political matter. The other members of the commission have been chosen to represent as broad a spectrum as possible. They have been deliberately chosen to represent, for want of a better word, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the north-east of England, the south-east and so on. We have tried to get a balance. It is not easy with nine members, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it was not for want of trying. We went through every possible permutation of names and interests to try to find a reasonably balanced group.
That reasonably well-balanced group of nine commissioners will consider ideas from the public. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked whether any Member of Parliament or any member of the public could submit ideas. The answer is: yes, they can. They should send their ideas to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, as the chairman of the Millennium Commission. Rather than sending ideas to the Department at its address in Cockspur street, it may be wiser to send them to the Millennium Commission, whose address I cannot remember. But I shall find out for the hon. Gentleman and put it in the Library of the House, or do whatever else is suitable.
We are genuinely looking for ideas for a festival as well as other projects for the millennium fund, which can provide a focus. The festival that the Millennium Commission organises will clearly not be the only


festival, but it will be a centre, which we hope will provide an example to the rest of the nation of how to celebrate the millennium.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hesitate to make any suggestion in the light of the Minister's own proposal that we ought to contact the commission directly, but I hope that thought will be given to not having a single-centred venue for a festival that is supposed to represent the national and regional celebration of the millennium and that some thought will be given to having a decentralised festival.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a point with which I agree 100 per cent. I was trying to say, in perhaps an overly shorthand way because of the time and the way in which these debates are structured, that the Millennium Commission will organise, in a rather more hands-on way than other aspects of celebrating the millennium, a central festival. No doubt, it will look at the festival of Britain in 1951. It may decide to follow it or not. But I have no doubt that in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and, indeed, in Harwich and Caithness, people will have their own celebrations of the millennium. If the hon. Gentleman would like any further details on how it is proposed that the Millennium Commission should advise on what is done in Edinburgh and so on, I should be happy to pass them on.
I was coming to matters of concern which hon. Members have already raised in passing and which have certainly been raised by the public. I shall address a couple of them: the protection of the anonymity of jackpot winners and whether it is right to allow the prizes to roll over and amount to the levels such as that last weekend of almost £18 million. That latter point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North earlier and by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) in Question Time earlier in the week. They both voice the views of many people and it is quite right that we should direct our minds, such as they are, to what we ought to do about it.
With regard to the anonymity and privacy of winners, the Secretary of State issued directions to the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery under section 11 of the National Lottery etc. Act exactly one year ago today. One of those directions made it clear that the licence to run the lottery must include a condition to the effect that the identity of any person who has won any prize in a constituent lottery shall not be disclosed by the lottery operator without the consent of that person. That condition was duly incorporated in the licence issued to Camelot under section 5 of the Act.
The Director General of Oflot, with whom, obviously, my Department has been in close touch ever since the brouhaha over the winner of the jackpot arose last week, has assured me that he has no evidence to suggest that Camelot breached that condition. In its public statement, Camelot has made it clear that it did not release any information concerning the winner of last week's jackpot without that winner's express consent. However, given the serious allegations that have been made, the director

general has decided that he will review what took place earlier this week and I shall ensure that the House of Commons is told of his conclusions.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I raised that issue in the House on Monday and it first came to my attention two or three weeks ago. Under what circumstances would Camelot seek the consent of the individual to release details of the winner and why should it think of doing so?

Mr. Sproat: I shall give my hon. Friend as straight an answer as I can, although he will understand that I cannot walk into the minds of members of Camelot as to why they may do something. I understood—I was not told this specifically by the director general of Camelot, so I may have been told wrongly—that Camelot felt that if it were able to give out a general fact or two about where the winner lived, it would satisfy the press. [Laughter.] I quickly absolve myself from such refreshing naivety on the part of those who felt that, if it were the case. That is what I have been told, but not by Camelot and not by the director general. But it was done, if it were done, with the best of intentions. If all that was done was done with the express consent of the person who won the lottery, there is therefore no reason, as I currently understand it, to think that Camelot breached the conditions under which it was awarded the lottery.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a second. I emphasise that the director general is concerned enough about what has happened to say that he will review the matter. I shall let the House know the conclusions of that review.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister and I shall not interrupt again. Is not it clear that even to give that apparently innocent sort of clue is to give away the identity of an individual, because one could even say that the winner was someone in London and the press would find him or her if it were determined to do so? Should not that be suppressed in future? Does my hon. Friend agree that no clues whatever should be given?

Mr. Sproat: Camelot will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and it will be looking at its own experience and at what happened in the media. No doubt it will take all that into account when it decides whether to give any clues next time. I understand what my hon. Friend has said and I have great sympathy with that view. I understand from the laughter in the House when I said that I had been told that Camelot thought that by giving a few bits of information it would satisfy the press, that those of us who have more daily dealings with the press than Camelot has had previously know that that was a forlorn hope. Anyway, it was done with the best of intentions.

Mr. Bernie Grant: If someone has ticked a box marked "no publicity", why should Camelot go back to the person to ask for his consent if I understand the Minister correctly that it is a part of the Act that no publicity should be given if the person does not want to give that publicity? Will the Minister do anything about that lapse by Camelot?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman describes accurately the situation with regard to the pools; one ticks a box if one does not want publicity. In fact, in the national lottery,


it is the other way round. If one says nothing, that is taken as meaning that one does not want any publicity. Therefore, in a sense, that is even stronger than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The winner's identity should not have been revealed. I am told that Camelot was helping to protect the winner's identity by, as it were, buying the press off and saying—and there was no ill intent—"Here are a few details. Leave it at that." Alas, the press did not. Camelot will look seriously at the matter because I shall undertake that the debate and the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to Camelot's attention.

Ms Hoey: The Minister implied that Camelot was almost naive, but that does not sit well with what he said earlier about it being a good business consortium. Camelot stands to gain from increased sales and will always have an interest in more publicity for the lottery. That is why the whole thing should have been organised and run by a charitable organisation from the beginning.

Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Of course Camelot has a vested interest in the success of the lottery, but the Government and the nation have a vested interest in Camelot being successful. Its commission is 5 per cent. and, by definition, the more successful Camelot is, the more will go to the charities. That is a mathematical fact. I have no doubt that a charity would want to maximise its return in exactly the same way as a company.

Ms Hoey: It would not make a profit.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Lady may say that, but a charity has to cover its costs like anybody else. The best way to maximise interest in the lottery is to give the company a personal interest so that it maximises the return on its investment, encouraging other investors to come in and increasing the lottery's efficiency and effectiveness.
Like all of us, Opposition Members have built-in prejudices. One of their historic prejudices is that they do not like the idea of private sector companies making too much profit. But in this case the more profit made by Camelot, the more money the good causes will receive. That is the best way to harness the dynamism of the private sector for the benefit of the public sector. That is my view and with my limited power over the English language, I can do no more to convince the hon. Lady.

Mr. Tony Banks: I suggest that this will be repeated time after time, particularly with large jackpots, because the press will continue to try to find out the name of anonymous winners. Would not it be better to remove that rule altogether so that those who win the jackpot will know that their names will be revealed? Why should anonymity be built in? After all, it is a national lottery and an absence of anonymity would enable us to know whether there had been any fraud. If the Secretary of State won the jackpot and claimed anonymity, we would probably be a little suspicious. If I had won £18 million, the whole country would have heard the start of the cheering in Forest Gate but they would not have heard the

end, because it would have finished somewhere in Mustique from where, of course, I would have faxed my application for the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view about the desirability of anonymity. My view is that anonymity is up to the individual, irrespective of whether the hon. Gentleman or I think that it is a good idea. There are a number of sides to the issue of anonymity, one of which is the badgering of winners. I understand that the winner has left his house. I have been told, although I do not know whether it is true, that he has even left the country because he was being harassed and badgered. That cannot be right.
Secondly, a family who won the lottery might be afraid of criminal activity such as a family kidnapping or burglary. Such factors, apart from personal preference, mean that we should rigorously protect anonymity. Clearly, it has not worked this week and we must look again at how to make it work. I do not have all the answers, but I am clear on the principle.
There is another aspect. What Camelot may or may not have done is one matter, but we must also look at the conduct of the press. I understand that some tabloids promised to pay people to inform on those whom they thought might have won a major lottery prize. The correct body to look into that behaviour is the Press Complaints Commission, and I welcome its announcement that it would consider a complaint from any winner or from any Member of Parliament who cared to take up the matter.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that such actions are not contrary to the whole work ethic of the press, which regularly pays people for information?

Mr. Sproat: The House has a number of varied and legitimate views on press payments for information or articles. Many people find it extremely distasteful that convicted criminals, for instance, should be paid for newspaper articles. There are times when the press legitimately pays people for information, but in my view and in the view of most hon. Members, there are times when payments are not legitimate. It is distasteful that people are encouraged by large sums to snoop and spy and betray their neighbours. However, as we saw in the courts, it is not against the law. I hope that members of the press will at least look at themselves and ask, "Is this really the way that we want to continue?"
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has not the Minister put his finger on the fact that it is time that the Government introduced legislation to protect citizens and victims of crime who see people being paid for their crimes?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. At this moment, the Government are considering the Calcutt report and other views that we have received on the issue of press intrusion.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that the media have a responsibility to respect the wishes of those who win large sums, especially in view of what my hon. Friend said about the pressures that such people could be under? Does he also agree that responsibility does not extend only to the name of the person? There were ridiculous antics this week. For instance, the winner's house was blacked out but the location of the neighbour's house could be seen. The


person's workplace was given and there were interviews with family and friends. That all suggested who the person was.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We must remember that the lottery has been going for only a month and many situations, such as on-line machines in hon. Members' constituencies not working or the behaviour of the press vis-à-vis the winners, are bound to arise. There are many issues, big and small, whitch we must consider. Just as the Government and the Director General of Oflot will consider various aspects, Camelot will be asking itself, "Although we acted with the best of intentions, was what we did wise?" In the light of the new situation, all those involved have to see whether they might adapt and change what they do in future.
Another area of public concern has already been mentioned: the size of the jackpot. Some people have commented that a prize of almost £18 million is too high and that jackpots that are not won should be divided among the winners of other prizes and not rolled over to subsequent weeks. I understand that concern but, on balance, I do not accept it. First, the circumstances that led to one person winning such a large amount were extremely unusual—or so I am assured by those who have a sharper grip on mathematics and odds than I have. I have to be careful what I say because the nature of the lottery is that one cannot predict the outcome. It should be relatively rare, however, for a rolled-over jackpot to be won by only one person. I am reliably informed that, under the laws of probability, last week's jackpot should have been shared by five people.
Roll-over should happen only infrequently. Each week, the number of people buying tickets should comfortably exceed the number of chances available. To date, average ticket sales have totalled more than three times the number of different combinations available. More than 45 million attempts were made to guess the correct combination of the 14 million permutations available. Last week that rose to a factor of more than five.
Having said all that, I believe that on balance we probably got it about right. The jackpot can roll over only three times and thus hugely increase both the jackpot and public interest and excitement. It cannot roll over more than three times and thus we have limited the first prize within some sort of bounds. One must draw the line somewhere and, for the moment, a roll-over of three is not unreasonable. The major point, however, about rolling over the jackpot, and thus the jackpot's total, is that the excitement that the roll-over generates causes more people to buy tickets and thus increases the amount that goes to the good causes, which is the ultimate intention of the lottery. In effect, therefore, last week's jackpot was extremely successful in achieving what we hoped the lottery would achieve.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is true, so why have the limit of three roll-overs? Why not let the roll-over go on? In the United States of America, for example, prizes in the state lottery can amount to £100 million or $150 million. Why not let the jackpot roll over? That makes the fun of buying a ticket much more attractive.

Mr. Sproat: One of the most enjoyable things about the debate is that one never knows from where one will he attacked. The hon. Gentleman takes a sort of extreme

capitalist, pro-American attitude whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North takes the opposite view. That shows the House of Commons at its best.
We have taken into account the fact that two very differing views exist. Some people say that there should be no roll-over and that prizes should be distributed much more evenly. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West advances a hypothetical argument. I do not know whether it is his personal opinion, but the view that the lottery should be allowed to roll over for ever until it is won is an important hypothetical argument.
We have decided, rightly or wrongly, to have a compromise so that, if there is a roll-over, the prizes are different each week. The thought of becoming a millionaire 18 times over just like that is extremely exciting to the public. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman would say that that is better than being the chief executive of British Gas. We had to make a choice between no roll-over or a roll-over for ever. We have decided to compromise and have three roll-overs so that money is distributed reasonably fairly, given the luck of it, and so that, at the other end of scale, we do not have such gigantic prizes that people think that they will never win and stop buying tickets. It is therefore a compromise.

Mr. Dicks: Switching the subject a bit, why do we have prizes of £10? I have won three times and won a total of £30. I am very happy, but £10 is nothing. I got the first three numbers and I was saying, like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), "Chiltern Hundreds, here I come," but then my luck ended. Perhaps the minimum prize should be £100 and not £10. That is an important point.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend says that the minimum prize should be £100 and not £10. That is his view and almost nothing that has been done about the lottery is fixed in concrete. I should have thought that the House and the Government would want to return to the prizes issue in due course. Camelot decided in its offer to Oflot that £10 prizes were a good thing because more people could win and because more people would find that they were benefiting from the national lottery.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington won that money and that he has outed himself in that dramatic manner. At the same time, we shall consider the prize structure, although I think that the £10 prize is a good idea. We should not close our minds to any reasonable changes that experience may dictate.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Due to the startling revelation by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), will my hon. Friend the Minister please take the opportunity to congratulate him on his donation to the Arts Council?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's comments remind me of the fact, of which I am sure many hon. Members have experience, that constituents write in and say that they object to the Government's policy on this, that or the other and that they are withholding a percentage of their income tax that would go towards things that they do not like. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and


Harlington that he might consider symbolically deducting 20 per cent. of his prize and giving it to charity so that it does not go to the Arts Council.

Mr. Dicks: I should like to tell my hon. Friend in all honesty that I give something like £3,000 to £4,000 to charities, especially those supporting people with spinal injuries, which I am happy to talk about in this place, and children with leukaemia. The fact that a percentage of the £30 has gone to the luvvies and the arty-farty people does not worry me too much because most of the money, with qualification, goes to good causes.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's position is well known in the House, as is the fact that he gives extremely generously to charities and works hard for them. We greatly respect that.
The lottery turnover increased from its average of £48 million in the first three weeks to more than £61 million last week—a rise of almost 30 per cent. Thus the contribution to good causes increased by a similar percentage from £12.5 million to £16 million. Those are the hard figures. The excitement generated by so large a jackpot to be won gave that amount to the good causes and the prime purpose of the lottery is to help to fund them.
A third concern about the lottery has been that it represents unfair competition for charities, the pools companies, bookies and other people in the gambling industry. Research conducted before the introduction of the lottery suggested that money to buy lottery tickets would come from many sectors of consumer spending, including confectionary, magazines and soft drinks, rather than from within the gambling market or as an alternative to charitable donations.
After just four weeks of the lottery, it is far too early to say what exactly the effects have been on spending in other sectors. One early report suggested that income for the football pools had not declined in the wake of the lottery, but I understand that more recent figures may paint a different picture. Similarly, different charities have described different experiences since the lottery was launched. Some have seen their income fall; others have not. Even in the case of charities whose income has fallen in the past month since the lottery began, it is not proven that the lottery was the cause of the fall. Clearer patterns, however, may emerge over a longer period.
I should like to emphasise that it is inevitable, when so major an innovation as a national lottery is introduced, that details will go wrong. There may be elements that time will show need to be changed. The Government will monitor closely and carefully what happens and, after appropriate periods, if we are convinced that elements need changing, we shall not hesitate, with the agreement of the House, to change them.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend mentioned the pools industry. Many thousands of jobs are involved in that industry throughout the country and many of them are concentrated in the north-west. We are yet to have the exact figures, but there is a great fear of a drop in pools companies' income. Does he agree that those companies should be given the opportunity at least to advertise the pools on television in exactly the same way as the national lottery is advertised not only on ITV but on the BBC,

where it is given plenty of free advertising? I hope that that is a forerunner for the BBC taking advertising to relieve pensioners and people on fixed incomes from having to pay the licence fee in the first place.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an important point and it is one that the Pools Promoters Association has put to the Government. The Government have considered it. During the lotteries debate, various concessions were made to the pools companies. The age of people who are allowed to take part in the pools has been reduced to 16; pools tickets are able to be sold in shops; and a roll-over in the pools jackpot has been allowed. The pools company can roll over its jackpot for the same length of time as the national lottery. For the first time, the pools companies are allowed to sponsor programmes on television.
Those are four major concessions that we have already given to the pools. I know that the pools companies appreciate that; I also know that they want more. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) makes an important case and we shall look at it. We really need to see what happens. We cannot start making major changes after just four weeks. We must let things settle down and if they turn out not to be right, we shall willingly look at them again.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Some scare stories are being put around because the national lottery is such a great success. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give me an answer to this question from the Dispatch Box. Will he look at the extent of the gross national product deflator that the lottery may be producing in terms of taking money out of the system? That will have an effect on circulation and on the GNP multiplier. Will he give me an answer at an appropriate time?

Mr. Sproat: I undertake that as soon as I have looked at my hon. Friend's contribution in Hansard and understood it, I shall come back to the question.

Mr. Tony Banks: My question is a lot easier. Will the Minister also look at another area of activity that may be affected—the bingo industry? There are some fears that it, too, could be affected. Why not allow bingo organisers to offer prizes higher than those to which they are limited now? Bingo is a very working-class activity, certainly in my part of the world. The bingo organisers need to be protected as far as possible.

Mr. Sproat: I shall look at that point. In a speech the other day, I rashly said that the pools promoters had wanted their position to be improved and that I would, no doubt, be hearing from the bookies by the first post next morning. There turned out to be a bookie in the audience and he did, indeed, write to me the next day. I had the pleasure of speaking to a representative from the bookies and this week, I spoke to a representative from William Hill. The bookies put a strong case for why we should look at the impact of the lottery on them. Equally, I shall gladly look at the bingo industry, if one can call it such. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West or any other hon. Member wants to bring a delegation to me, I shall gladly meet them.
I began by saying that I intended to speak relatively briefly.

Mr. Dicks: It has been an hour now.

Mr. Sproat: A very good hour, if I may say so. I intended to speak for 12 to 15 minutes, but the interest of the House has caused me to prolong my speech. I think that the time has now come to say farewell.
Some 3.5 million people have already won prizes. More than £53 million has already been deposited in the national lottery distribution fund. The proceeds for good causes are growing at approximately £2 million a day. The prospects of funding for the arts, sports and the heritage have never been better. In addition, the lottery has proved itself to be a huge success. The Government confidently expect it to remain so.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister has spoken in his usual relaxed, friendly and even emollient style for a considerable time. As he says, that reflects the interest in the subject among hon. Members. He has, however, been verging on the bland and complacent when talking about the many problems that have arisen in the past month. We welcome his clarification on the millennium fund and his clarification of the impact on charities, pools and bingo. I shall come back to those points in a moment.
The Minister made some interesting but extremely unsatisfactory comments about anonymity and press ethics and about the roll-over and the problems of the size of the jackpot. We welcome Oflot's inquiry into anonymity and we hope that it will be concluded speedily. We certainly welcome the fact that the Press Complaints Commission will look into the matter at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that the Government too will look at the matter with some stringency.
There are things that the Government could do. We need a privacy Act, as the Government have known for some time. They have been thinking about it and saying that they will do something while several Secretaries of State have come and gone; we still have not got there. Generally, members of the public have no protection in law from harassment by the press. They should have that protection and the Government must respond quickly. If they do not, this new Department will not look on top of the job when it comes to dealing with the press. For the Minister to say that he is thinking about a response to Calcutt is ridiculous. The report was published about three years ago. It is about time that the Government responded because many of the problems need to be worked out quickly.
The Minister's comments about Camelot were surprising and bland. We must wait until the inquiry reports as there is no evidence yet that Camelot has leaked the identity of the winner. The inquiry will establish whether it did so. If, as the Minister says, Camelot has given out a few bits of information, it has been either very naive or very stupid. It is clear that the press is sufficiently bright that a few bits of information are enough, as the Minister has said, to identify the person who has sought anonymity. If that is true, the Government must take a strong line with Camelot. The mistake cannot be repeated.
The Minister said that he was advised that, mathematically, a roll-over was extremely unusual. We accept that it is difficult to get a compromise between the size of the jackpot and some restraint on it. The general way in which the Government sought to do that was correct. It is clear, however, that the limit to three roll-overs is not working. The Minister chewed over the problem, but he did not reach any conclusions. The Government must exercise themselves a good deal more energetically. The roll-over is a problem and I do not believe that this week is the last time we shall have an £18 million jackpot.
Some people, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), reckon that the roll-over is a good thing. Most people to whom I have spoken believe that it is a bit tacky. The jackpot's credibility will become slightly soiled when the sums are enormous. On both points, the Government must say something a good deal more definite. They must not just interestedly consider the matter, as the Minister has done today, but address the problems with a good deal more urgency. I do not believe that the Minister has satisfied the House on this. He has ignored many other major problems that have arisen in the first month. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will take a far stronger, more urgent and more energetic attitude to the problems.

Mr. Nigel Evans: If it could be proved that, with the roll-over, so many more people were participating in the lottery that extra money was earned for the good causes, would the hon. Gentleman still say that the top prize should be limited, thereby denying the good causes all the extra cash?

Mr. Fisher: It is arguable whether we should have huge prizes and pay-outs, as we had this week, or more large ones. After all, £l million, £2 million or £3 million is a huge amount to any of us. The mathematics of happiness are ambiguous. Would more large pay-outs encourage more sales, or would sales be boosted more by an occasional mega win, as we have had this week? It is an arguable point that we could go on debating. I am not sure how the mathematics of happiness or incentive work on this.
The Government have chosen a strange topic for debate the day after—they knew that it was going to be the day after—their humiliating defeat in the Dudley, West by-election. Last week, the chairman of the Conservative party threw in the towel in an unprecedented way and said that he knew that the Conservatives had lost. The Government knew that they would face problems today and they chose this debate. They could have chosen anything. They could have chosen to debate Europe, for example, VAT on fuel or the behaviour of British Gas towards its chief executive. They could have chosen to debate the fact that while British Gas pays £200,000 extra to its chief executive, it is cutting its retail staff's wages and holidays. They did not choose those topics; they chose the national lottery, presumably because they reckoned that it was a safe and easy subject. The lottery is popular and has no political


problems, so they thought that they could just sit there. The Minister's speech and his relaxed demeanour show that he thinks that he is in for an easy time.

Mr. Jesse: In that case, why did we not have the debate before the by-election?

Mr. Fisher: That is a very good point. If I understand the Government's psychology, I suspect that they would like to debate this subject indefinitely. The Minister's hour-long speech certainly suggested that they would like the debate to continue for ever.
The Government underestimated the issue, however, and when they chose the debate they certainly did not foresee this week's papers being full of injunctions, writs, inquiries and the Press Complaints Commission. More substantial problems may arise. It is perhaps a fact of life that when things go wrong for the Government, they do so on every subject, and they are even getting this one wrong.
As we emphasised on Second Reading and in Committee, we welcome the national lottery. The millions of people who enter it each week, the 15 million people who watch the draw on television and most of the press coverage—apart from this week's coverage—show that it is popular. The Minister's expression that it is gripping the public's imagination was slightly florid, but it is certainly popular, and in that sense it is a success.

Mr. Maclennan: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman reassert that the Labour party fully supports the lottery. Is it happy about the redistributing effects of the lottery?

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall deal with exactly that problem in a moment.
The applications to the five boards that are likely to flow in from the beginning of next year certainly show that the money is needed. It is needed for the good causes because of Government neglect. Historic buildings are falling down, theatres are not being built or are in a bad state of repair and libraries, cinemas and sports grounds are not available in many cities because for 15 years the Government have done nothing about those issues. The good causes are needed to shore up the Government because, particularly in culture, sport and recreation, the Government have not done their job. The national lottery is band aid for their poor policies.
There are other problems. The scale of money, the fact that, although it is public money, it is the boards' money to all intents and purposes and the importance of the causes that will benefit emphasise that the lottery is not just a bit of fun, as much of the debate seems to suggest, but an important public issue that we have to get right. In many crucial ways, the Government have not got it right. They rushed into it and tried to get it running as quickly as possible because they saw that good things could come from it and, as has been shown in speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, they have not thought out many of the problems. They have not got the administration right.
It is a matter of public accountability and credibility for the lottery and for the Government. If the public are not satisfied that the lottery is properly devised, set up and

administered, confidence in it will wane and it will cease to be a success. None of us wants that to happen, so it has to be properly set up, and in many ways that is not so.
There are four basic tests by which we can assess what has happened. We need to ask whether the national lottery has been free of political interference and pressure as it needs to be seen to be independent. Secondly, its finance and administration need to be openly and efficiently run, and the finance should be fairly and properly divided on a decent basis. There should also be clear policies for the management and distribution of the receipts to those good causes, which should generally meet public approval.
The consequences and the effect on redistribution, on other aspects of public policy and on other bodies such as pools promoters, bingo and the media should have been carefully thought through and anticipated—or, if not anticipated, responded to. The Government have not done very well on any of those concerns and there are doubts about all four. Too many questions are unanswered, too many issues are unresolved and too many aspects are capable of going wrong.
It is not for nothing that the logo chosen for the national lottery is crossed fingers: those crossed fingers belong to the Government. They have their fingers crossed that it will all work out and it will be the popular success—for them—that they hoped it would be, but that attitude of "Let us hope for the best", symbolised by the crossed fingers, is not good enough for a Government and we need something a good deal sharper.
Let us look at what has happened. The Government clearly hoped that the lottery would be a weekly fairy tale of a nice family or person winning huge sums of money, good causes benefiting and everybody being happy. It should have been a wonderful thing, but the events of this week show that, in certain circumstances, it can turn into a weekly nightmare. It appears that there is a danger at least that the entire enterprise is beginning to crumble in the Government's hands. Writs and injunctions have been issued, Oflot is conducting an inquiry, the Press Complaints Commission is involved and complaints have been made about the quality of the BBC's coverage.
The first money that the charity paid out was £19,000 to sack and pay off an extremely distinguished person with a long record in charitable work who did not meet with the personal approval of the millennium commissioners. It is ridiculous that the first money paid to the lottery should have been for that purpose.
The National Lottery Charities Board is in a shambles and a state of unpreparedness. It is understandable that charity organisations all over the country are becoming increasingly disturbed and angry. There are reports that rural areas are being ignored in the number of outlets—I note that Conservative Members are nodding in agreement—and there is real concern that, despite the Government's protestations, because of how the boards have been set up, small organisations around the country will be squeezed out by the big, glamorous and well-prepared ones. They are all real problems that the Government have not considered.
In introducing the national lottery, the Prime Minister said:
Every man and woman in this country can be a direct beneficiary, not just the great and the good.
We all hope that that will be so, but the way in which the Government have set it up makes that less rather than more likely.
Let us consider the four tests that I mentioned. Has the national lottery been set up in a way that is politician proof? The 1978 Rothschild commission, which examined the potential of lotteries, emphasised that any lottery should be free from direct Government interference, but this lottery has the Government's hands all over it.
The Government will be the winner every week. They have a huge political and financial interest in the lottery, and to protect that interest they have an interest in it being a success and in their getting the credit for that. For that reason, the smallest, but perhaps most important of the boards—the Millennium Commission—is chaired by the Secretary of State for National Heritage and another Cabinet Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, is a member in a personal capacity. If we are to have a test of political interference and independence, why on earth are two Cabinet Ministers dominating the Millennium Commission?
When the Secretary of State answered a question on Mr. Hinton's sacking from his post as chief executive of the Millennium Commission, he behaved as though he had nothing to do with it. He said that the commission had made the decision. He was the chairman and all the press reports suggest that his falling out with Mr. Hinton led to his departure.
The Government have become far too enmeshed in the details. I am not sure whether it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be chairing the Millennium Commission, nor that so many supporters and members of the Conservative party should be on it. The brother of the Secretary of State for the Environment chairs the arts board distribution body. He has a good reputation in the arts and is a member of the Arts Council, but his appointment certainly raises questions about so many active Conservatives being on boards.
The Minister spoke about political balance on the Millennium Commission, but it is a bit of a joke to describe one to nine as a political balance. I am not sure whether there should be any political balance; I think such matters should be independent of the Government and by talking about political balance the Minister is implicitly admitting that it is a political matter and that the Government have their sticky fingers all over it.

Mr. Sproat: I did not say that there was a political balance. There is a geographic balance and we had to try to get a proper balance of other interests. There are representatives from different parts of the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome the fact that at least one member of the body was specifically appointed by them, although I would not pretend that one representative from the Opposition would make a political balance. In fact, have no idea how the other people on the board vote. We did not try to construct a political balance; we just wanted some Opposition input.

Mr. Fisher: I think that the record will show that the Minister did talk about a political balance when he referred to the fact that Mr. Michael Montague was nominated by the late John Smith, the former Leader of the Opposition. It is a bit of a nonsense for the Minister to say that he does not know how the rest of the board votes when one or two of them have been Tory councillors—elected members of the Tory party.
The test of political independence has not been passed. It is a very politicised organisation. The Minister shakes his head, but the Secretary of State chairs one of the key boards that distributes money. We could not get more political and less independent than that.

Mr. Tony Banks: When the millennium arrives, we shall be into the second or third year of a Labour Government. I hope that this question is not presumptuous, but what proposals do we have for changing the way in which we approach the millennium, how it will be celebrated and what sort of people will make the decisions?

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My speech will show the sort of changes that we expect to make in a number of respects. It is not just a question of the membership of the boards. We will not replace Tory appointees with Labour ones, but I suspect that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State will need to step on to the Millennium Commission and inherit its chairmanship to put things right where they have gone wrong. The whole way in which it has been set up is quite suspect.
I come now to the second test of the quality of the financial set-up and management. There are already major question marks over the three-way split of receipts into prizes, good causes and profits. The profits go to both Camelot and the Government week after week. We have talked about the prizes in relation to this week's roll-over prize. Any gambler will tell the Minister that the lottery offers lousy gambling odds compared with any other form of gambling. It is interesting that the Government did not require some advice and warning about the odds at the point of sale. The size of the prizes in relation to the amount invested is very poor compared with other forms of betting, but it is with the profits that we are most concerned:
The Government have never answered our questions about why they thought that a private monopoly was the right way to handle the matter. What happens when Camelot recoups its initial investment in advertising and start-up costs? The Minister has only just begun to deal with that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) made an extremely good intervention about that early in the debate.
The lottery will be a success and the public will support it—and as from next year Camelot will be making horrendously enormous profits, that will become an embarrassment and will not improve credibility. If the estimates are right, over the seven years of its franchise Camelot will make £1.5 billion profit because it was given a franchise and a monopoly. Conservative Members are very keen on competition—

Mr. Derek Conway (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Camelot will pay tax on it.

Mr. Fisher: That was an intervention from a silent member of the Treasury Bench. Yes, Camelot will pay tax on the profits, but they will be 10 to 15 times higher than would normally be considered a successful return on a business investment. That raises questions. The Government should try to find a way of renegotiating some aspects of Camelot's contract. I am not sure whether that is possible, but it has certainly not been a good start.
There are also question marks over some of the smaller details. ICL has the contract for servicing the 35,000 terminals. Over the seven years, it will get £100 million for fulfilling its contract. There are reports that that is £65 million more than other bids for the contract. The Minister must tell us whether the reports are true and whether ICL was the most expensive company bidding. If so, why did it get the contract? I suspect that servicing those new machines, which were installed only last week, will not be an onerous job. If that £100 million bid was larger than any other, it shows that it was a very ill-thought-out contract.
Too much money is going to the Government. If the lottery is to have credibility, it must not be seen as a form of indirect and regressive taxation, taking from the poor to give, as some commentators have said, to the interests of the well-off and the rich. The Government will benefit week after week, so they must convince the public—they have not yet done so—that it is not backdoor taxation.

Ms Hoey: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of sorting out the problems, confusions or even misconceptions that the Minister may say we have about the operating costs and the ICL contract would have been to have made everything public? The competitive bids and the contracts should have been made public. We did not see them so there is no real feeling that this was the best deal. Some of us think that there may have been better bids.

Mr. Fisher: I agree with my hon. Friend. She implicitly makes our case that there should be a Freedom of Information Act in Britain. When the Government rejected and talked out my Right to Know Bill last year, they introduced a White Paper on so-called open government. They said that they would open up and improve procedures. There was a good code of practice. The information that we have been requesting is just the sort of information that should be in the public domain. The fact that it is not makes a mockery of the Government's claims about open government.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong plea for less political interference in the running of the national lottery, yet he now appears to be asserting that politicians should be able to probe and pry into the commercial contracts of the lottery operator, Camelot. Surely any commercial contract that it enters into is governed within the 5 per cent. that it takes and therefore does not seep through into the amount that charities, the good causes or even the tax man are getting.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman will also recall that I said that this is public money and a very important public issue. When setting up such a major scheme, there is an absolute responsibility on the Government to ensure that that is done properly and fairly. There must be seen to be openness of procedures. The Government should have been more open about, for example, Oflot's scrutiny of all the constituent parts of Camelot, one of which is GTECH, an American company with a slightly questionable reputation. In 1991 it was involved in a corruption scandal by giving election donations to Senator Alan Robbins in relation to an interest in a lottery that was being set up. We never heard about that; the information came out by the back door.
There should have been a great deal more openness about who was involved in the organisation—there should have been a great deal more openness about all the aspects. This is a matter of public concern. If the Government are serious about open government, they should be open and serious about this matter.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman may be right when he says that this is a matter of public concern, but there seems to be some misunderstanding. We are talking not about public money, but about private money. Is the money that people put into, for example, the pools industry, public money?

Mr. Fisher: The whole enterprise is in the public domain. The money that will go to good causes and to the Government will certainly be public money. The Government have set up the lottery as a public network of structures. It is right that the Government should be accountable and should be questioned on whether they have got it right. I believe that, in certain ways, they have not.
For example, the Government have not given enough thought to roll-overs. They have not given enough thought to the shambles of the millennium fund or the complete shambles of the National Lottery Charities Board, which the Minister ignored. The charities board will be the biggest area of activity. It says that more than 700,000 charities will be eligible to apply. It reckons that there will be 200,000 applications. It will probably pay out £100 million or £150 million a year. Charities are a key area and people are most concerned about it.
The board chairman was appointed four months ago, but the board has not yet published its guidelines. It says that it will not do so until the middle of next year. It will not invite applications until the middle of next year. Will the Minister give us a date by which the charities board will be operating? As yet, it has only temporary offices. Why is there such inefficiency and delay?
For more than a year, the Home Secretary has known that he, unlike the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, is responsible for the board. The Department of National Heritage has got its act together reasonably well, with some qualifications, in running the four boards for which it is responsible, but the Home Secretary has not got the board up and running. It is ridiculous that money will go to the board for the next six months but nothing will be paid out. No wonder that charities throughout the country are angry.
Blame does not lie with the chairman of the charities board, Mr. David Sieff. I suspect that the blame lies with the Home Secretary. He must make a statement to the House about when the board will operate and why it has not been appointed before. It simply is not good enough to allow such a delay when he has known about his responsibility for some time.
The Act does not appear to contain much restraint on the administration costs that anyone can charge, and that needs to be looked at, but the principles of distribution are agreed: both large and small projects should benefit and the whole of the United Kingdom should benefit. That sounds simple, but I do not believe that it is as simple as it sounds, not least because on Monday the Secretary of State said at column 595 of Hansard that each application to the Millennium Commission would be judged "on its merits". That sounds sensible.
The ambitions to judge projects on their merits and to achieve a mixture of large and small projects spread over the United Kingdom seem to contradict each other. What if most of the bids that merit attention are big bids? I understand that one of the criteria should be a balance between large and small. If the Secretary of State and the boards judge applications only on their merits, they will be unlikely to fulfil that criterion and the criterion of achieving a UK-wide spread, which hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see put into effect.
The Secretary of State needs to make it much clearer that small organisations and non-London organisations will be regarded as having merit. That is the only way to guarantee that projects will be spread around the country. In certain respects, the way in which the Government have set up the charities board is terrifically balanced against small organisations. The big organisations have already prepared their bids. They have sophisticated, well-thought-out, well-prepared bids. They have the partnership money and they are raring to go. The smaller organisations have not prepared their bids, regardless of what board they are applying to. That is wrong. There is a built-in bias against small organisations and the Government must do something to correct that.
The Minister has talked about the Millennium Commission. We have already discussed the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The Millennium Commission should pay particular attention to the mix of large and small. The Minister said that there would be only 12 large projects. I suspect that he accepts that those projects need to be started now. They will have to be commissioned in the very first year if projects such as the Tate gallery at Bankside—if it is successful in its bid—are to have a chance of meeting the criterion set by the millennium fund that they must be ready by the millennium.
The big 12 projects will all be started next year. It will be difficult to keep the balance between big and small. The Minister must say something about that when he replies to the debate. He should also explain why Mr. Nicholas Hinton was sacked. The Government have failed to explain that. If it was because he fell out with the Secretary of State on a personal basis because he was too strong a character, that is worrying in terms of what it tells us about the Secretary of State's personal involvement in the Millennium Commission. The Secretary of State refused to give reasons to the House at Question Time recently. That was not to his credit. He should give the House some explanation of why someone who came with a great reputation from the charities sector should have so instantly fallen out with the commissioners.
The Minister also has some answers to give—if he will pay attention—on exactly who will be eligible for receipts. In some areas it is not clear. Will libraries be eligible? If so, for funds from which board? When my office rang the Secretary of State's office yesterday, it understood that the heritage board would be the right place for libraries to apply to. The library world has not been told that. It needs to be told. I am not convinced that the heritage board is the right place.
One of the most interesting developments in recent years in the work of libraries, apart from information technology, is their increasing tendency to become wider cultural centres in which many arts activities take place. The Minister will be well aware of that from his travels around the country. There is a good case for some new

libraries that emphasise that role to apply to the arts board. The Minister must make clear to what boards, if any, public libraries should apply and for what reason. The reason should not be historic conservation. There is a pressing need for a new generation of public libraries in constituencies throughout the country. They need to know now to which board they should apply.
A question was asked about science at Question Time last Monday: to what board should scientific projects apply, apart from the Millennium Commission? Who is to judge that? Who will advise the Government? Will children's play projects be eligible and, if so, to which board should they apply? Every hon. Member knows from his or her constituency work how pressing is the need for children's play facilities. Children's play projects will be a constructive set of small projects, but it is not clear whether they should apply to any particular board. Will chess be eligible for funding from the sports board? The board has issued a list of eligible sports, but chess is not on it. Why? Chess is usually considered a sport. It is one in which Britain does well. Will the Minister comment on why it is not on the list?
Will the Minister also comment on the recent announcement by the Government and the Arts Council that film will be eligible for funds? What sort of film projects will be eligible? Will feature film production be eligible? Although the Opposition can see some case for increased funding for British screening, I am not sure that the millennium fund is the right pool of money for it to come from. If the basis of the Government's case is that film is a capital asset, that opens the door to investment in books, sculptures and other artefacts and products which could also be seen as capital assets. The Minister must think a great deal more carefully about the eligibility of film and what aspects of the film industry—buildings, archives or whatever—will be eligible.
Will English Heritage be eligible for heritage board pay-outs? If advisers are eligible, as they should be, they will be in the difficult position of advising the board that will make grants to them. The Minister must clarify English Heritage's position.
The Government say that in certain circumstances, commercial organisations should be eligible, and I agree. I can envisage circumstances in which that would be to the public good. West end theatres are a crucial part of London's cultural economy. Some are in beautiful condition and some in a poor state. There could be good, constructive applications from theatres, but clear criteria and checks must be devised if public money is to go to private organisations. The Government must be much clearer about the constraints and parameters. They could be opening a dangerous door.
There are many eligibility problems, and the Government should have addressed them long ago, but they failed to do so. They also failed to address multiple applications. Organisations have approached hon. Members saying that their projects appear to be eligible for several boards, and wanting to know the co-ordinating structure among boards. There cannot be co-ordination with the charities board because it is not paying out at the moment. Small projects as well as big will want to make multiple applications to several boards. The guidelines and ground rules are not clear.
Small groups are in every board's remit and are a key, but they are already feeling marginalised. The speed and complexity of planning and the need for partnership funding biases the enterprise against small organisations.
The Government must say something today about the problems of section 26 and the balance between capital and revenue funding. The Government started by saying that funding should be solely for capital projects but did not anticipate the problems that they were letting loose. That premise may be fine for heritage, where £1 billion of decaying buildings identified by the last Arts Council chairman, Lord Palumbo, can be addressed solely as a capital project that does not have many revenue consequences, but for the arts and sports boards the revenue consequences are enormous.
I refer to not only the running but the programming costs of new buildings. Many have pointed out that there is a danger of a generation of wonderful new buildings such as concert halls and sports stadiums, in which no concerts or other activities are undertaken because there is inadequate funding to run such events. The Secretary of State has not thought it through.
It is interesting that the Secretary of State's comments in the past few weeks have been moving towards allowing revenue funding in exceptional circumstances. He must spell it out. That is not adequately done in section 26. Unless the right hon. Gentleman explains that, there will be confusion and unfairness.
Most of those organisations will not be able to show adequate revenue funding and will not be financially viable. They are the two criteria that the right hon. Gentleman gave in the House the other day. Public support will be needed for programming and activities in buildings. What will the Government do about that? They cannot sit there and talk vaguely about "exceptional circumstances". They must be a great deal more precise; otherwise, there will be real problems.
If the Government do not have the solution now, they should be leading a debate. We cannot have magnificent facilities in future years without activities being undertaken in them. The Government have not considered additionality, to which the Minister referred. Conservative Members are already talking about that matter. On "Westminster" with Nick Ross this week, one Tory Member said that when £200,000 is going to the Arts Council from the lottery, the Government should cut its grant. At present, the Government will not do that, but that has occurred in other countries that run a lottery. If the Government do not want that to happen, they must take action now.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I have been calling for the total abolition of the Department of National Heritage. That would be much more effective.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman's ravings on that subject are well known to the public. No doubt we will have to hear them yet again today. I am sure he will make his points well.
The Government say that they will be firm on additionality, but they must do much more to convince the public. The integrity and credibility of the Sports Council, Arts Council, English Heritage and national heritage memorial fund are at risk if, as happened with

the Sports Council, grants are cut. The Minister did not address that point properly. The grant has been cut for each of the next four years. If that is not anticipating receipts from the Sports Council, I do not know what is.
The Minister said that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts will be well protected, but that is pools money and completely different. The Government should be investing in the Sports Council, which does excellent work.
The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that the Arts Council did well this year, but he is wrong. It did not recover the £3.2 million cut made last year. To take account of inflation last year and this, the Government should have put £2.75 million more into the council than they did. They gave more than people expected, but the council is still behind on two years ago—and that figure was woefully inadequate.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the substantial increase that the Arts Council enjoyed between 1990 and 1993.

Mr. Fisher: I remember it only too well. That increase did not make up for the terrible loss of grant over the previous 10 or 15 years. It has grown worse and worse in real terms. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Arts Council did well that particular year, but he should ask his regional theatres whether they are able to stage as many productions, have casts as large and undertake as much education as they did. The answer from every theatre and arts organisation in the country would be no.

Mr. Sproat: Beyond a shadow of a doubt, spending on the arts has increased 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979. It did not go up that much under Labour. Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) may think, and I hear his complaints, it cannot be denied that the Government have given that increase.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister is comparatively new to debates that have continued several years, and he is completely wrong. He is saying that Government Department expenditure has increased, mainly inflated by the long, drawn-out agony of funding the British library. Let us consider the National theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company and regional theatres, which are £7 million in deficit. If one were to ask whether their grant was more or less than 10 years ago, whether they could stage more productions and commission new work and whether they could undertake more outreach work and education, the answer would be no. He knows that arts organisations have successively been cut. He should not blur the figures by talking about capital expenditure on the British library and other such schemes and the administrative costs of his own Department. We have had this debate many times before, and this is not the time to have it again. The Minister is right about the figures but wrong about arts organisations such as the regional arts boards and the Arts Council. He knows that that is the position, and he should accept it.
The Government have not thought through the consequences for the pools. Pools promoters do not have a level playing field on which to operate. The Minister referred to advertising but did not say that he would take action. Will he give an undertaking to introduce some change? It is wrong that pools promoters should be at such a disadvantage.
It makes no sense at all that betting shops should not be points of sale. Surely they would make admirable ones. It is probable that betting shops will suffer along with others. Why should they not sell lottery tickets? The bingo industry will undoubtedly suffer. The Minister should say something about that. His remarks about small charities were far too bland.
We have a real opportunity with the national lottery that is recognised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is the opportunity to put right our historic buildings, which the Government have allowed to decay over the past 15 years. On Lord Palumbo's estimate, £1 billion is needed. We have the opportunity to put right our cultural buildings, such as libraries, concert halls, arts centres and theatres. We must get these projects right. I am talking of buildings that the Government have allowed to decline through their underfunding. We have a chance to mark and celebrate the millennium in a way that would make clear our pride in the British culture.
We have a chance to spread sport throughout the entire country. Support can be given to education, which has lost an enormous number of playing fields over the past few years. Quality can be improved. When we bear in mind the English cricket team's performance, it is clear that we need all the help and investment that we can get.
There is a chance to do the little things, which are the most interesting and important, in every community throughout the United Kingdom. We shall be able to restore communities that the Government, through a package of policies, have done so much to fracture and destroy over the past few years.
The potential of the lottery and the good-causes side of it is enormous. We all welcome and applaud that, even if much of the need for it is the result of the Government's neglect. It is not good enough for the Government to have, metaphorically, their fingers crossed, like the lonely logo. If they do not take on board the important points of additionality, anonymity, funding and separation of powers between the Arts Council and the arts boards, as well as many other issues, they will snatch if not defeat at least shambles from the jaws of what should be victory. They must uncross their fingers, stop hoping for the best with the lottery and ensure that it is the success that it should be and that we want it to be. It will be a success only if they approach the problems to which I have referred with much more urgency and produce some positive answers to them.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful that I am able to contribute to the debate at a relatively early stage, but such was the fury generated by the two Front-Bench spokesmen that we are progressing more slowly than we expected. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I have an interest in so far as I act as a consultant with SG Warburg, which at one time, I think, advised Camelot. I have had no discussions about that relationship.
Sadly, I have no interest to declare in the sense of being a winner in the national lottery, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who seems to have had more than his fair share of winning over the past week or so. I do not know whether other hon. Members have shared the experience from which I have suffered since becoming a Member of this place.

When I was not a Member, I used never to win raffle prizes, but as soon as I became a Member and found myself having to draw raffle prizes almost every weekend, I started to win with boring regularity. On that basis, I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will shortly become a substantial winner in the national lottery.
I never thought that I would feel sorry for someone who won £17.8 million in a lottery. Like many other people, however, I have been made to feel sorry for that winner. My sorrow is not so much based on the fact that he has won the money, although some have expressed concern about that. That is especially so among those who have a vested interest in the growing activity of counselling. They seem to be leaping on the poor man and his family, and that is something that I would not wish on anyone. I am more sorry for him because of the way in which he has been treated by the press, which has behaved extraordinarily insensitively. I agree with much of what was said earlier about the press. Perhaps it was unrealistic, however, to assume that the press would not take an inordinate interest, especially bearing in mind the roll-over.
It is clear, however, that the winner has been hounded. Indeed, we have been told that he has been hounded out of the country, but probably not to Mustique, where the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says he would go if he won the national lottery. We should not encourage such hounding. I am sure that the House would seek to express its disapproval of such activity.
I was not happy to hear Mr. David Banks on the "Today" programme earlier this week—he is a representative of the Mirror Group—justifying the prurience of the British press on the ground that national lottery money is public money. It is not. It is private individuals' money and the winning of private individuals' money. Mr. Banks talked also about accountability, as if hounding an individual winner and his family advanced the cause of accountability, which it certainly does not.
My hon. Friend the Minister has said—this must be right, but I am no mathematician—that roll-over wins of the sort that occurred last week will be extremely unusual. It is important for the House to bear that in mind when we are considering what could or should be done, or needs to be done, to meet the problem of roll-over.
There is no doubt that the individual who has benefited from the win has suffered an embarrassment on a grand scale. My only sorrow is that there are so many people who seem to see the win as the opportunity to have a whinge. Although the win will undoubtedly bring about a significant change in the individual's life style, we should not feel sad on his behalf. Surely it is something that we should celebrate. It is true that accumulation under the roll-over provisions will enable the lottery to go from strength to strength. There is nothing like seeing people win to encourage more people to play. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, that can be only good news for the good causes, for which £53 million has already been raised.
It is important to remember the age-old knowledge that money does not necessarily bring happiness. We do not have to look so very far back into folklore, or even contemporary history, to see the truth of that. Geoffrey Chaucer wrote, "Radix malorem est cupiditas"—the love of money is the root of all evil. While I do not go the whole way with Geoffrey Chaucer down that road, there


is no doubt that money does not solve anyone's problems and does not necessarily transform people's lives in the way that they would think. I have never met a genie from a lamp, but I am reliably told that anyone who has and was foolish enough, with the three choices that such people are invariably offered, to choose the bag of gold has always found that he has chosen the wrong way, and instead of becoming endlessly rich and happy he goes the other way and his life changes irredeemably for the worse. There is a lot of truth in that. It is important to see the subject in perspective.
The television programme that accompanies this great venture has come in for some stick. There is a sort of corny materialism about it, which is inescapable, but one must see it in context. The national lottery programme comes on immediately after "Bruce Forsyth's Generation Game" and "Noel's House Party"—neither of which could be considered highbrow, although I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) thinks.

Mr. Simon Burns: He thinks it is highbrow.

Mr. Ainsworth: Yes, it is probably highbrow to him. Neither of those programmes is likely to go down well in Islington.
I agree with Alan Yentob, who has associated an undesirable snobbishness with criticism of the national lottery programme, which was not designed to be "Omnibus" or "World in Action". It serves a different market and, on the whole, I think that it is serving it well. Those who find it offensive have only to switch it off.
I have gained some pleasure in the past week from observing the activities of the killjoys, quite a few of whom have been airing their views in the national press. Their opening line tends to be, "I don't want to be a killjoy, but" and I have a wonderful example from The Daily Telegraph which this week ran a feature on the national lottery headlined:
Winning the lottery's jackpot: a joy or a burden …
VIEW FROM THE EXPERTS
The first expert to give his opinion was the Rev. Nigel McCulloch, the Bishop of Wakefield—since when have bishops been experts on lotteries? In the article he says:
I don't want to come over as a killjoy but
and then states that he thinks that there are some problems with the lottery. He raises the problem—a fair one—that it will encourage people who cannot afford it to have more than a flutter. I well remember that subject, which we discussed at length in Committee. But, ultimately, in a free world, it must be left to individuals to decide how to spend their money.
The bishop mentioned another problem. He said:
There is also the serious issue of the raising of false hopes.
I thought that he was going to say that false hopes were raised because people who hoped to win were disappointed—but far from it. He says:
It was said that the lottery would be harmless entertainment but it cannot be when you present people with the possibility of winning so much.

False hopes, as the bishop sees them, seem to be associated with people who are successful, not unsuccessful, which seems to be a strange turn of events.

Mr. Dicks: It is interesting that the Church expects the very few churchgoers who are left to pay 10 per cent. of their income. The bishop should be joyful, especially at this time of year, about the national lottery—10 per cent. of £18 million would swell the coffers of the decrepit Church that he represents.

Mr. Ainsworth: I am sure that, on reflection, the bishop will come to see the benefits of the national lottery. I am sure that he would not for a moment agree with my hon. Friend's view of the Church of England.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman said that the bishop would not be an expert in lotteries, but does he agree that the bishop, as shepherd of a flock, may have an understanding of human nature—we are dealing with human responses?

Mr. Ainsworth: I do not deny for one minute that prelates of all denominations have complete freedom to comment, with some authority, on matters of human conduct.
I shall be interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who may seek to speak later, although he seems to have left the Chamber—no doubt, temporarily. He is on record as saying that he finds the national lottery morally repugnant—a strong and clear view. It is ironic and entirely in keeping with the consistency that the House and the country has come to expect from the Liberal Democrats that, in a parliamentary question on 29 November, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he could have more lottery terminals in his constituency. There seems to be confusion among the Liberals as to where they stand on this important subject—but that comes as no surprise to anybody.
Questions have been asked about the availability of lottery tickets. I wrote to Camelot asking whether it was possible to have a terminal in the Palace of Westminster. I have yet to receive a reply, and I note that other hon. Members have taken up the noble cause. It is not always easy for Members of Parliament to find the time to pop into the relatively limited number of outlets that currently exist. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will lend his weight to the cause and not listen to the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
Perfectly reasonable fears about the distributing organisations have also been expressed—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) touched on them. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman over the revenue-capital argument, particularly in relation to the Arts Council. If he looks at what the Arts Council is saying he will see that it is particularly keen that emphasis is placed on capital spending. If the hon. Gentleman investigates I think that he will find that the Arts Council seems to have no problem with that. I accept that there may be greater difficulties for charitable bodies. In answer to a parliamentary question a little while ago the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), stressed the need for flexibility on the revenue-capital split, particularly in relation to charities.
To return to the subject of distribution bodies and their competence, it seems that each of the bodies, which have made progress at varying rates, could learn a great deal from the Arts Council. Under the excellent chairmanship of Peter Gummer, who chairs the national lottery board, the Arts Council has come up with an exemplary package of information for people seeking to bid for lottery money. The Arts Council also addresses the problem raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about smaller organisations. It goes out of its way to make it clear that applications from smaller organisations will be just as welcome as applications from larger ones. It has produced a very well-presented package, which I hope is being studied with care by the other distributing bodies.

Mr. Fisher: I absolutely agree that both the sports and the heritage boards have produced good and useful packs—the Arts Council's is outstanding. The appointment of Mr. Jeremy Newton as chief executive is welcome throughout the arts world—his reputation is enormous. I think that the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) misunderstood my comments on revenue and capital.
The Arts Council recognises the enormous capital needs—huge areas of the country do not have regional theatres, concert halls or arts centres—but it is not blind to new problems that will arise. When new establishments are built they will want to become clients of the Arts Council, which will welcome them. But the Arts Council will need programme funding. The Government have not faced up to that. The Arts Council is aware of the problem and is right to place initial emphasis on capital, but we must also consider the long-term consequences of new buildings—the Government are ducking that problem.

Mr. Ainsworth: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but not his last sentence because it is simply not true. The Arts Council particularly stresses the aspect of dividing capital from revenue, which lends weight to the argument about additionality. It also enables greater clarity so that we can see more clearly where the money from the national lottery fund is being applied. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury have repeatedly made it clear that the money raised by the national lottery for good causes will not be used to substitute money in existing budgets.
Another issue specifically related to the arts is that the bulk of money that goes to the arts is revenue. Although the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is right to raise the issue, I do not believe that the problem is as great as he implies. Certainly, in the light of information that I have received, that view appears to be shared by the Arts Council.
This debate is very timely and welcome. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central a guarded welcome for the national lottery. It has gone out of its way to look for problems and difficulties, to anticipate the problems and difficulties which may arise—in some cases I do not think that they are ever likely to arise.
We touched on roll-over and anonymity, and my hon. Friend the Minister will have more to say on those later. I am glad that the uncertainties that I had earlier today about those matters are being reviewed and that the whole matter will be kept constantly under review.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central admitted that the national lottery has proved popular. It strikes me that the real problem that Opposition Members have is its very popularity. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he did not like the attempt, as he saw it, by the Government to claim credit for the national lottery. Quite frankly, if it had not been for the Government's determination to introduce a Bill to make the national lottery a reality—let us remember that many Labour Members voted against the Bill when it was passing through the House—we would not have the national lottery, the £53 million that is already going to good causes and the pleasure that winning the lottery as a result of a modest flutter brings to millions of people.
I suspect that although the hon. Gentleman protests that he does not want to see party politics coming into the matter, his entire position is based on opposition to anything that the Government do, and it sticks in his gullet that the national lottery has been such a great success. I think that it will continue to be a success for the arts, sport, charities, and heritage. It will be a success for Britain as a whole, for its culture and for its individuals. I warmly welcome it. I can add only that I hope that one day, if my children ever pick the right number, it may be a success for me as well.

Ms Kate Hoey: I must tell the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) that many hon. Members supported the national lottery, but some of their criticisms about it when they did not support the Bill on Second Reading were dealt with when it went to Committee, to which many Labour Members contributed.
I have no doubt about my support for the national lottery. I speak as a long-time supporter of it, although at some stages in the debate it was not very popular—on both sides of the House. Many hon. Members who represent constituencies in which there are large numbers of football pools workers were rightly lobbied strongly by the Pools Promoters Association which had an interest. Some of its literature and rather extreme arguments and statistics were wrong and were not believed by many members of the public.
Nevertheless, as a long-time football pools participant, I want to place on record my belief that the pools companies should be able to compete on an equal footing with the national lottery. The important issues, for example, advertising on television and radio, could be cleared up quickly without any need for legislation. It really is not fair that football pools, although allowed to sponsor television programmes, have still additional restrictions on that. They may not sponsor programmes—the very programmes that would be of most benefit to them—in which the results of matches appearing on the pools coupons are announced. The national lottery has been allowed to advertise on both television and radio. The pools companies should be able to do the same. That is fair. The Minister could announce that change today. He does not need to look further into the matter.
I congratulate the Minister, as I know that his Department tried to get the Treasury to reduce the pools betting duty by 0.5 per cent. Perhaps the Minister hoped that the Chancellor would listen so that the proceeds, plus the diversion of an equivalent amount from the foundation, would go to the football trust, with the intention that that extra money could be used to allow


grants to go to other sports, for example, safety work in rugby league, which is very necessary, rugby union and cricket as well as football. Those sports will probably not, at professional level, receive much from the national lottery. Unfortunately, the Chancellor did not agree to that and the remedy lies in the equalisation of the outtake between the pools and the lottery.
There is another aspect of the pools that should be made equitable, and which again does not need legislation but simply changes to section 56 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The Minister talked about the removal of the prohibition on the collection of football pools coupons and stake money through shops, but that relaxation is limited to pools competitions relating to football games played on Saturday, Sunday or public holidays. It means that football pools companies will not be able to run competitions based on mid-week matches and will be restricted to running one competition a week. In addition, it stops pools companies from selling tickets in shops for a competition based on the results of other sports, for example, cricket or rugby. There is no justification for that somewhat arbitrary restriction. It simply increases the pools' operational costs and compounds their competitive disadvantages.
Although I started by making it clear that I thought that some of the pools companies' lobbying about the national lottery was over the top, there are some points that the Minister could make quite easily which would ensure that the pools and the lottery were treated equally and fairly. They are rather modest proposals. I think that they would be in line with what Parliament would want to see—fair competition.
I shall now deal with the way in which the national lottery was set up. This is not whingeing, but it is important that Parliament understands that sometimes mistakes are made, and I believe that mistakes were made when the national lottery was set up.
Let us look at the issue of no direct competition. Camelot, the consortium that won the lottery bid, has the most experienced lottery operators in the world. The Minister mentioned earlier that he thought that they were, perhaps, a little naive. We must understand that the people running Camelot know everything that there is to know about running national lotteries. Anything that they do is not done because of some slip-up or mistake, but with properly calculated reason. The conditions under which they were engaged were far from competitive. It is no fault of theirs. I do not blame Camelot, as it is a business consortium and is obviously in it for whatever it can get out of it, and the lottery watchdog, Oflot, does have a responsibility.
Instead of each section competing directly, for example, one computer company against another, printers competing with printers, and the same applying to advertisers, banks, and PR companies, the bidders were asked to form a consortium. There was no direct comparison, like with like. No one knows the real cost of each section. There is no direct competition as there is in the marketplace. Monopolies are supposed to be against Tory ethics and I cannot understand why they allowed that to happen. Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, all contract details should have been made public.
There was too much secrecy in the whole business. The way in which the Minister said that the 35,000 computer terminals would be serviced is a case in point. The Sunday Times reported that ICL, which owns 10 per cent. of the Camelot bid, will receive £100 million for servicing the terminals during the seven years, yet the three other companies that bid for the same job quoted only £35 million. Despite the size of other sums that have been mentioned today, £65 million is a huge difference and it could have done an enormous amount if it had been given to good causes. For example, it would have built many good-quality multi-sports centres, swimming pools and so forth. We must question how that was able to happen.
I raised with the Minister in an intervention the subject of start-up costs and when they would be repaid. That is important because the invitation to apply for the lottery was given without a stipulation that start-up costs should be repaid within the first year. To be an outstanding success, no other lottery needs profit on its equity capital. Why should we have allowed a structure in which five companies plan to make at least a 163 per cent. return on investment annually, which will bring at least £100 million a year to a few companies—that will increase to £200 million in profits in the peak years—when all the money could have gone in prizes and good causes?
On 3 November Peter Davis, the director of the Office of the National Lottery, wrote to me saying:
The operator could then, free from debt, commit a greater contribution to the National Lottery Distribution Fund.
In reply to my intervention, the Minister said that he thought that the start-up costs would be paid back soon. I would like much more precise details when he replies.

Mr. Sproat: It might be helpful if I gave the hon. Lady some information now. When she mentioned profits earlier, I misunderstood and thought that she was talking about the benefit that Camelot might get from putting the turnover in an overnight deposit account and getting a percentage. I accept that she did not mean that. Camelot does not expect to get any return on its investment until the fourth year of its seven-year franchise, which is a long time into any franchise.

Ms Hoey: I am surprised at those figures as Camelot invested £49.5 million and borrowed £75 million. On the basis of the first four weeks, it is estimated that by the end of this year it will receive £134 million. Together with what the Government are taking, that is a very large chunk. The reason for repaying Camelot's costs is clear—only when they are repaid can interest and dividend payments be avoided and the funds to the overall pool maximised.
Camelot must be pushed on that matter. The contract should never have been given without a date being set for paying back the start-up costs. As people realise what huge amounts of money the operators are making and the Government taking, they will certainly be suspicious, even if they are unable to prove the case, and if normal Government funding for sport and the arts is reduced, they will feel dissatisfied.
That did not need to happen. There was a formula. With a charitable foundation the costs would have had to come out of the fund—everything that needs to be done must be paid for—but the people would know that those running it were not doing so merely to make a profit, but in the interests of good causes and of giving them the maximum amount of money. That works elsewhere and we should have been able to do it that way, instead of simply giving


the lottery to the company with the best bid when the costs were not disclosed. Seemingly, the Minister is not going to change any of those decisions.
There are a number of queries about how the lottery will work in practice and how money will go where it is supposed to go. I have always worried about the fact that the Arts Council and the Sports Council will distribute the money. There are dangers, especially for smaller groups. Some arts or sports projects may have had difficulty with the councils—perhaps for no reason and due to no blame on either side. The same organisations should not distribute the new money from the lottery, which will generate such public interest. I wanted a single national lottery distribution board with charitable status, as I said. No matter how much the Arts Council and the Sports Council try, they will have to be carefully monitored to see how the system works.
I am also concerned about the bureaucracy that is inherent in the way that the Arts Council and the Sports Council—probably for good reason—work. That bureaucracy will mean that some smaller groups will not be able to find their way through the system and the huge amount of form filling. Compare that with the much simpler way in which the Foundation for Sport and the Arts works. I hope that the Arts Council and the Sports Council will learn from that.
I do not want to comment on how good or bad television coverage of the lottery is—suffice it to say that if I am in on a Saturday night, I will turn over to watch the national lottery programme. I do not know what that says about my cultural aspirations. If the coverage is to continue, it will be useful if it shows the public how the money has been distributed, once that starts, and a little more about the ethos of the lottery, so that people view it not merely as a great opportunity—we all hoped that we were going to win the £17 million—but as a way of building support for the principles behind it, which are doing good and improving the quality of life.
The lottery is about investing in people and that is why the Government have been too concerned with the returns. A single national lottery distribution board with charitable status would have cleared away Government involvement in the politics of the lottery. Party politics should not be involved. Obviously we can all have an influence, but the lottery should not be seen as providing extra money for the Government to distribute. There is already concern that less Government money will go to the Sports Council because it is felt that more money will come from the great pot that is the lottery.
Mistakes have been made and there is no reason for anyone to be defensive about that. Obviously, when one sets up something new, mistakes will be made. I hope that the Minister will listen and talk to people who do not have a vested interest, but are interested because they genuinely want the best to be done for this country.
I congratulate Denis Vaughan, of the lottery promotion company, who has done most of the work to keep the flame of the national lottery alive and has continued to question some of the ways in which it has operated. If the Government had listened to some of the things that the national lottery promotion company said earlier, we might have avoided some of the mistakes that we are now encountering.
I am delighted that the national lottery has got off the ground. However, we need to keep a careful watch on it. I ask the Minister to stop being hung up on the idea of it

having to be run by a private company, which will make more and more profit. We want to maximise the amount of money going to good causes and that can never happen when it is being run simply for the profit motive.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I point out that there is considerable interest in the subject and if we pursue the debate in the leisurely style in which we have pursued it so far, there will be some disappointed hon. Members.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for deciding to call me now. I agree that the debate has been somewhat leisurely. Indeed, the speeches made by the two Front-Bench spokesmen, with which the debate began, took practically two hours. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was interrupted many times. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was not interrupted quite so much. Anyhow, I shall not speak for an hour, even if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me, which you will not.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), whose enthusiasm for sport is well known to the House. She said that the lottery was "about good things". I remind the House that when we enacted the National Lottery etc. Bill a year or two ago, the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) predicted that the amount to be found for each of the five good causes would be about £80 million, totalling between the five causes £400 million per year. We heard today from the Under-Secretary that the amount for good causes that has come in each week was already £12 million, rising to £16 million due to the exceptional lottery last week with its enormous jackpot. That suggests that the amount coming in for the five good causes taken as a whole will be at least £600 million for the year and that each good cause will receive upwards of £120 million, which is half as much again as my right hon. Friend predicted.
Those figures appear to show, in the early stages at least, the tremendous strength of the national lottery. It suggests that it can and will do a lot of good. All of us in the House should see it as a brilliant national achievement. It gives a great deal of excitement and pleasure to a large number of people week after week. It produces—or should produce—a great deal of happiness in those who win prizes and those around them. It produces a substantial amount of tax yield, which, as my intervention implied earlier, is not confined only to the official figure of 12 per cent. It can be augmented indirectly by other sources of revenue to the Government, springing from corporation tax on Camelot and from tax on those who sell the lottery tickets or those whose work is related to the lottery who also pay income tax. In addition, of course, there is all the money that goes to good causes.
I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was right to suggest that we should not rush into adjustments and corrections to the system all at once. With such a massive new enterprise, it is inevitable that we encounter some unforeseen consequences and problems that may be large or small. We need more time to see how it works out. For example, my hon. Friend has been advised that the very large jackpot last week of £17


million was to some extent a freak chance and that the mathematical odds against that happening in any one week, pair of weeks or three weeks running are very high. We should have the experience of six, nine or 12 months before changing the system.
The size of that jackpot attracted more money, which will augment the money for the good causes. For example, at about 5 o'clock on Saturday, I went to my local garage and bought five more tickets than I had planned to buy—I had bought one ticket earlier in the week—because I was attracted by the idea of winning £17 million. I know that the odds were against my winning, but I spent that extra fiver, the Government will get 70p in tax and the good causes will get about £1.30. I took my chance; I had £5 in my pocket. The whole episode was not especially disastrous. I had 10 minutes to spare on that Saturday afternoon. We need an assessment of how much more the good causes receive as a result of the occasional freak jackpot because of the rolling on from one week to the next.
Other problems have become apparent, and one that occurs to me is that we ought to question the quality of counselling provided by Camelot to winners. One may say that that is purely a matter for the commercial judgment of Camelot and for it to see to, but it seems that the image, hence the success of the national lottery to some extent, relates to the position and problems of prize winners. Whether the top prize is £17 million, £5 million or £1 million, the winners ought to have access to first-class advice. Whoever wins such a large sum should be able to do a great deal of good, not only for his own satisfaction and pleasure from what he spends, but in what he can do for his family, friends and charitable causes. It seems very sad that someone who wins a very large sum says within a couple of days that he wished that it had not happened. It suggests the possibility that there is an inadequacy in the quality of counselling provided by Camelot.
The House and the Government should take an interest in that matter because it interacts with the success of the lottery. I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to request the Director General of Oflot to ask Camelot about suggesting improvements in the counselling given. So far, all we have been told is that Camelot provides counselling, but we have been told no more. The word "counselling" makes me slightly uneasy because—

Mr. Dicks: If my hon. Friend is looking for a definition of counselling, it is another band-wagon on which some do-gooders come forward to make a fortune out of saying nothing.

Mr. Jessel: I do not mind if people are well paid for counselling, provided the advice that they are giving is good advice. The word "counselling" to me, connotes someone sympathetic and friendly who sits next to someone who is unburdening his problems and says, "There, there." The counsellor may have some knowledge, experience and qualifications, but possibly may not be a particularly distinguished and expert adviser.

Mr. Deva: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jessel: May I finish my point? A person who has suddenly won £1 million, £5 million or £17 million ought instantly to be advised to go not to a run-of-the-mill solicitor, but to a top, distinguished solicitor from a top

firm of solicitors who is highly experienced, who has a great deal of flair and expertise in advising on matters such as setting up family trusts, whether discretionary or otherwise, and setting up charitable trusts and the like, and who can advise big prize winners what to do to benefit their children and grandchildren, while ensuring that they are not too vulnerable to fortune hunters. The sort of advice that might be given at present by Camelot's advisers to people who come into large sums is inadequate. Perhaps the Minister will ask the Director General of Oflot to look into that to see how it can be improved.
There has clearly been something wrong over privacy and anonymity. There is an obvious temptation to Camelot, which wishes to boost the success of the lottery, to hope that large prize winners will allow their names to become public. Reports of successful winners provide more vivid publicity if those winners are not anonymous. The publicity and the adventures of the winners will promote the lottery. It would not be altogether surprising for Camelot to try gently to encourage winners to become public while at the same time reminding them of their legal right to remain anonymous.
Equally, it is not surprising when the press tries to find out who prize winners are because it makes a good story. The whole matter needs to be tightened or anonymity will not be real. The Minister is right to ask the Director General of Oflot to inquire whether the terms are being strictly adhered to.
I do not think that the Press Complaints Commission is a satisfactory body. It does not have enough teeth. I am a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage, which produced its report on privacy and the media 21 months ago. It appeared a month or two after Calcutt, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred. He said that it was three or four years ago, but I remember almost precisely that it was two years ago.
Harassment and the whole issue of privacy, whether in relation to the lottery or to other matters, should be the subject of legislation. Ordinary people, whether they are lottery prize winners or witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee, who were the widows of soldiers who had been murdered in Northern Ireland and had been harassed without mercy by some sections of the media, ought to be better protected. There should be an offence of harassment. It is appalling when, for example, photographers climb trees on a neighbouring plot to take long-distance shots, which are then magnified to show the faces of relatives at funerals.
There should be an ombudsman to deal with privacy and he should have power to fine and apply to the court for an order to sequester the assets of those who engage in unjustified intrusion into, privacy. The legislation should apply to lottery winners who are unjustly and unfairly harassed by the media when they wish to avail themselves of the right to anonymity. That right is included in the Act and in the terms of Camelot's contract.
I shall now refer to the five good causes. The hon. Member for Vauxhall spoke about sport. When the Select Committee on National Heritage, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave evidence, was considering the sponsorship of sport, it became apparent that some sports do not make good television because they do not give rise to good pictures on the screen. One such sport is squash,


which it is difficult to portray on television because of the sudden changes of angle made by the ball and because of the indoor set-up and lighting.
As squash makes poor television, it cannot attract sponsors, and it should have particular help from the Sports Council and the lottery. If that does not happen, some very good sports, merely because they do not make good television and cannot attract commercial sponsorship, will begin to wane. The lottery can help to put that right.
I shall now refer to the millennium fund. There are to be 12 big imaginative schemes in different parts of the country. For example, there could be a big arts centre in a provincial city or an important project in Kensington linking the Albert hall, the Albert memorial and the great museums there. I can dimly remember as a child the festival of Britain, which the Attlee Government started in about 1948 on the south bank. That is analogous because that Government undoubtedly took an interest in it.
The Millennium Commission has such important and lasting work of national importance to do that it is entirely proper that whoever is Secretary of State should be actively involved. That is completely different from the other four good causes because the question of which arts, sports group or charity one supports should be argued and not be the subject of interference by Ministers. There is a choice to be made between different opera companies, sports bodies or charities—they are quite different from the millennium fund. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central on that.
The appointment of Miss Jenny Page as the director of the millennium fund should be warmly welcomed by the House. I was greatly impressed by her tremendous work as the director of English Heritage and her appointment augurs well for the millennium fund.
Finally, I should like briefly to mention three projects in my constituency: the Hampton swimming pool, the Teddington theatre club, which is setting up a theatre at Hampton Hill, and the new arts and music centre project in Twickenham. I shall not take up the time of the House by enlarging on those, but I should like the Under-Secretary to note my interest, and I give notice that I shall raise those matters elsewhere in more detail at a later stage.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate is somewhat premature because lottery tickets went on sale only a month ago. As the Minister said, it would be unwise to make judgments on the evidence of so little experience. I am somewhat surprised that the Government chose this subject for debate because it clearly means that those of us who have anything to contribute will be told, "We had better wait to see the outcome."
We know that in the month during which the lottery has been in operation it has given the nation one multi-millionaire whose takings far surpass those of the richest magnate in the land for this year, a handful of millionaires, several column miles in the newspapers and the immortal catch phrase, "Activate the balls." Not long

ago I noticed a jingle by Henry Fielding about lotteries. I think that it was written in about 1732. I do not know the tune.

Mr. Dicks: Sing it.

Mr. Maclennan: It would out of order to sing it, much as I should like to. The lyrics went:
A lottery is a taxation
Upon all the fools in Creation
And Heaven be praised
It is easily raised
Credulity is always in fashion".
I much enjoyed some parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). That includes his venture into his local garage last week, when he showed perhaps a degree of credulity, but he is one of those people who would not be harmed by the modest expenditure that he made on that occasion.
In the first month, we have learned a number of things that are positive and interesting. We have a better idea of the amount of money that might be raised. By the middle of this week, I understand that the national lottery distribution fund had received £53.4 million from Camelot, which is to be distributed among the arts and heritage, sport, charities and the millennium fund. At that rate, as I think the hon. Member for Twickenham worked out, too, more than £600 million will be raised in the first year, if not more, depending on the popularity of the instant gain scheme to be introduced in 1995.
We know something about the operation of the broad criteria for applying for money from the lottery. The basic principles were set out in February this year by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). Capital projects are to be favoured over revenue support, and partnership money is to be secured from another source. Projects must be tangible to the community and viable in the long term. Apparently, some rethinking . is going on about revenue funding, which is appropriate. I was interested and glad to hear the Secretary of State for National Heritage say earlier this week that it is recognised that capital expenditure has revenue implications and that there are occasions when it might be sensible to consider that source of funding for revenue reasons.
The Arts Council "Detailed Guidance for Applicants" states:
You cannot, at this stage, apply for 'revenue funding' or 'endowment funding'. We will only consider requests for grants for these purposes if we have already confirmed that we will provide a grant for capital expenditure. You should make sure that your project does not depend on either of these forms of funding".
With the exception of the National Lottery Charities Board, detailed guidelines to all other sorts of applicants have been issued. All that is welcome.
Even after four weeks, a number of problems are clearly apparent. One problem that has played a large part in the debate involves protecting the anonymity of winners. The regulator has a statutory duty to protect the interests of the players. The player code of practice established under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides that the regulator must provide winners with an option of anonymity. It is clear that that system is not foolproof. Great difficulties are involved in making it foolproof.
I was interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Twickenham that counselling on the receipt of substantial sums of money would be appropriate. I am


sure that that is right. Any change in fortune that is so unexpected is dislocating, whether it is a change for the better or for the worse.

Mr. Jessel: I understand that counselling is already provided by Camelot, but we have not been told what quality of counselling it is. I wanted top-class counselling for those people.

Mr. Maclennan: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that that is desirable, although at one point he suggested that the trickle-down effect of lottery winnings might be spread over the great City firms of solicitors. It is difficult to suggest, other than in the broadest terms, that expert advice should be sought in dealing with such substantial sums of money.
There are risks. We know of them from the experience of other countries. Winners may be vulnerable to exploiters, fraudsters and even violent crime. It is not hard to understand, therefore, that people want to secure anonymity. If it is possible, that should be recognised as a legitimate objective.
I question the possibility of anonymity because, obviously, there is a great deal of interest in sudden changes of fortune. It is the stuff of drama. I do not hold the press or media guilty in seeking to feed that sense of excitement which flows from sudden changes in fortune. We look forward to the report that will be produced by the director following the review that I understand has been put in train.
The other major problem that appears to have developed involves the National Lottery Charities Board, the only disbursal body that has not so far issued guidelines for applicants, despite the fact that, by common consent, charities are at most risk of losing income to the lottery. It appears that the board will not be in a position to distribute its estimated £100 million until next autumn, almost a year after the lottery began. It has no permanent office; it has no chief executive; and its telephone number is not available from directory inquiries. Some public accusations have been made that that is the fault not of the Department of National Heritage but, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Home Office, which has been rather slow to back up the initiative of the other Department, particularly in relation to the appointment of the board's chairman Mr. David Sieff, who did not take up office until May this year.
It must be recognised that charities are far from enthusiastic about this development. Of all the interests involved, they are the least enthusiastic. The money arrives next autumn and the charities seem ungracious in their response. It is worth remembering that the charities receive among them about 5p in every pound spent on the lottery, while otherwise they receive 100 per cent. of their money directly.
It is balm to the consciences of people who buy lottery tickets that there is some side benefit for charities and good causes but that, of course, is not the reason why people buy lottery tickets. They do so for the reasons that

the hon. Member for Twickenham described in his speech—the outside, remote possibility that one's fortune will be substantially enlarged.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Does he accept that those who have had experience of the national lottery in the Republic of Ireland and of working in the charity sector have gone on record as saying that there has been a substantial adverse impact on charitable giving there?

Mr. Maclennan: I accept that. I made that point in my speech on the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill. I thought that we should recognise that charities in the Republic of Ireland had asked the Government there for a drastic change. We are advised, rightly, in this debate that it is too soon to seek substantial modification of the principle behind the lottery. It is also too soon to judge the scale of the losses that charities will suffer if their income is diverted to the lottery. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on the situation. Charities play an important role for which there is no other provision and they have an increasingly important role in providing services that have previously been provided more directly by the state.
The true measure of the lottery is not the number of millionaires that it creates. If it has value, it is the amount that is distributed to good causes and where that money goes. We must consider the effect of lottery spending on charitable giving and the pools, and the extent to which the Government substitute lottery cash for core funding of the arts from the public purse.
I do not think that the four weeks' experience we have had can provide us with any real indicator. I have noted what has been done in respect of the Art Council's allocations for this year. It is, of course, quite inconceivable that the Government would blatantly cut funding for the Arts Council in the first year of the lottery and thus prove all the gloomy predictions correct. That would be a political folly that not even this Government would embrace. We must watch the trends in expenditure on the arts, especially expenditure by the Department of National Heritage.

Mr. Deva: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said. Was he not in the Chamber when the Minister explained that there was no cut in Arts Council funding because the money had been transferred?

Mr. Maclennan: I did not say that there had been a cut. I said that I had noticed that there had been a modest increase this year. I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
There has been a great inflation of expectations about the benefits that the lottery moneys will bring. Among those who seem to have been the most gullible are those who are most aware of the need for expenditure. By September, it was already clear that the lottery moneys had been heavily over-subscribed before the first ticket had been sold. A number of projects, from the proposed Olympic stadium in Manchester to the Hartlepool indoor bowls club, had already laid claim to £752 million.
The predecessor of the present Secretary of State put in for money for the millennium festival, his pet project, to emulate the great exhibitions of 1851 and 1951. I rather favour that idea; we all have our pet projects. I have already made the point—I am glad that the Minister


responded so positively—that a national festival should be celebrated at the millennium throughout our country. The festival of Britain was largely celebrated on the south bank in London.
We still need greater guidance about the prioritisation of funds because that is a key element in the success of the lottery. Is the priority to be opera houses or bowling greens, cinemas for rural areas or great stadiums in our metropolitan centres? The same arguments will rage over the choice of projects as already preoccupy those in the Arts Council, in English Heritage and in Scottish Heritage who are charged with making similar choices. An excess of elitism would be as damaging as an excess of populism in the allocation of funds.
The most important principle is that lottery projects do not produce a drain on otherwise limited resources, especially Arts Council and Sports Council resources. Nor should the lottery penalise those in the charity, arts and sports world who receive money from competing sources, such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, or directly in donations from the public. I believe that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has been one of the most beneficial organisations set up in this country in recent years. There are already threats to its operation. I shall not repeat what others have said in the debate about the impact of the lottery on the football pools. That point was made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and by other contributors to the debate. There is a serious risk of a big diversion of funds from the pools to the lottery. Although the odds on winning the lottery are longer than those on the pools, the money that the lottery provides far outstrips that of the pools.
The pools companies provide the resources for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which has a proven track record of backing small community-based projects. For every £1.05 spent on the pools, 5p goes to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and in three years it has handed out £215 million. That is about one sixth of the amount that the lottery will target to projects in a similar period.
Those projects may not be supported by the lottery, which will have larger sums to spend, perhaps on more prestigious projects. If the pools are squeezed by the lottery, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and those who benefit by it will also suffer. I am glad that the Government have given it another five years' lease of life, but it has been represented to me by the foundation, and must commend itself to the House, that the pools are disadvantaged in comparison with the lottery. They are debarred from advertising on national television and radio, they are not enjoying the promotion by the BBC, the betting duty that they pay is set at 37.5 per cent. whereas lottery income is taxed at 12 per cent., and the terms governing the roll-over of pools jackpots, although there have been some adjustments, are certainly not as advantageous as those of the lottery.
All those factors have to be examined specifically and carefully by the Minister, as I would regard it as a great tragedy if the Foundation for Sport and the Arts were to disappear. Its influence has been tangible—very significant indeed in a number of small communities—and it has been operating on a tight bureaucratic budget. One of its most attractive features has been how little has been spent on overheads.
The lottery will be judged by its impact upon the nation through the munificence of its large sums of money. Britain lacks a number of modern flagship institutions that other countries have. For example, our national stadium at Wembley is only slightly larger than some European metropolitan stadiums. We lack a theatre or dance house dedicated to dance, and for a long time I have felt that it was quite unsuitable to ask the Royal Ballet and the Royal Opera to share the same house. There is a growing interest in both opera and ballet and I would like a permanent venue established for dance in our capital city.
A potential beneficiary or a way of removing what is becoming an increasingly embarrassing problem from the Department of National Heritage would be to devote resources to the national library. I rather object to the way in which expenditure on the national library tends to be rolled up with expenditure on the arts. Quite frankly, it has been a disgraceful episode in our administrative history. It is not something that should be allowed to drag on for much longer. The lottery money could be directed to the national library, perhaps through the national heritage memorial fund, or the Millennium Commission.
In a press release on 22 June 1994, the Millennium Commission said that it was
considering allocating funds in four areas",
one of which would be
a small number of major projects of national or regional importance.
It also said that it was considering contributing
around 50 per cent. of our estimated income
to those projects and that
these schemes are likely to cost tens of millions of pounds.
The House will remember that the project was first brought forward by Lady Williams of Crosby, the then Secretary of State for Education, as long ago as 1978, to cost £164 million. The library was originally intended to seat 3,440 readers and have sufficient storage space to last until the next century. Currently, there is no date for its opening. The cost is now estimated at £450 million, it is to seat 1,176 readers—only 76 more than it can seat at its present site—and it is estimated that the storage space will be full by the time it opens in a few years. That is the sort of project for which lottery money could be used. I draw particular attention to the desirability of enabling the library to hold on to adjacent empty land rather than it being disposed of, as has been proposed. For a cost of less than £2 million, it would provide much needed space for storage, reading and parking.
I hope that this experiment with a national lottery is not wholly bad. The Minister knows my reservations about it. I am sure that there will be benefits, but it is difficult to judge what the social consequences will be. However, within a year or two we shall be able to judge some of the economic consequences and the impact on the targets of the so-called good causes. Then, we shall want to rethink the matter.
This country has experimented with lotteries before. We built the British museum with lottery funds. We have also disposed of lotteries for good and sufficient reasons. I dare say that we shall turn full circle once again.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was some talk about counselling. I think that most hon. Members have


been counselled to stay away—and quite sensibly in view of the elitist nonsense that we have heard. Indeed, I could do with some counselling—perhaps a double Scotch—after having had to sit here listening to it for three hours. Anyone who is daft enough to stay for my speech should have the same sort of counselling afterwards.
I must make it clear that I am not opposed to the lottery. I am opposed to the idea of so-called good causes—the arts, heritage, sport, charities and the millennium. The only one with a dollop of good sense and a dollop of good cause is charities. Who created good causes? From where did they come? I do not know, but I bet that it was the luvvies, the establishment and all the people who meet together wearing bow ties and frocks. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eton—I am sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who went to Eton—is no longer here to nod his head because I am sure that he has made a contribution to a good cause.
Let us examine each of the so-called good causes. The House knows my views on the arts. The Arts Council's grant was raised by twice the rate of inflation—the forecast of £146 million became £191 million. It is what I call and what most people see—especially those whom I represent—as the luvvies' feeding trough. To give money to it now would be nothing more than a charitable confidence trick, a bit like people believing that Picasso could paint when he just scribbled all over the art paper.
What about the royal opera house? Why not have a royal bingo house? We could open a bingo place for my old-age pensioners in Hayes and Harlington. We could get royalty—as long as it is not the Duchess of York—to open it. A royal bingo house would be every bit as important as the royal opera house—an organisation so inept and incompetent that it spends money that it has not got on artists that it cannot afford. People call that the right thing to do. Why is it done? It is because it is what the luvvies want.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Dicks: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a long talk and, with great respect, I needed counselling to listen to him.
Now, the royal opera house wants money for its building projects. It cannot make any savings from revenue, despite a subsidy of almost £40 a seat. It is going out with begging bowl in hand to raise money.
The Arts Council—a so-called good cause to which some of the lottery money will go—is actually giving out money so that an artist can have a dead sheep stuck in a fish tank on display at the Serpentine gallery. I do not give a damn what two luvvies do with a dead sheep as long as the sheep is dead and the door is shut.
What I said in an article in May is most appropriate. I said:
I detest the way this network of luvvies cling together, feeding on flattery and false values, fawning on Arts Councils in pursuit of grants, and worming their way into the theatres and galleries with a wholly bogus elitism. Because they like opera, ballet, orchestral music and obscure dramatic works, they club together within the state, persuading successive governments to give more money to the arts—and then using it to subsidise their own leisure at the expense of the rest of us.
I could not have said it better than I did earlier this year. That is exactly what I think about the arts and everything connected with them.
I find it almost obnoxious to listen to my hon. Friend the Minister—he is a real friend, despite his views on cricket—justify the fact that the Government have given more to the arts and the throw-away of a mere £5 million more to the Arts Council. It is a shame. It is degrading and disgusting.
What bunkum we hear about heritage. Everything that is old and ancient must be used to grab money from the national lottery to keep it in being. One of the richest organisations in Britain is the Church Commissioners. That body has bags of money. It is one of the worst landlords for a long time, but never mind that. All that we see is appeals everywhere to keep churches up. If we go there on a Sunday we are lucky to get three people at 7 o'clock mass, perhaps 24 at 11 o'clock and perhaps one and a dog at 6.30 pm. Yet we have this drive to keep going a church with a broken spire and bits falling off.
Then we hear the Bishop of Wakefield say that a few bob on the horses or the lottery is wrong. If he wants £1 million or £18 million, the 10 per cent. that the Church pressurises its parishioners to give to the Church would be a tremendous improvement. Then he could do something useful instead of pontificating to empty churches and the rest of us about how people should spend their hard-earned money. I find that appalling.
Who benefits from stately homes? The chap whose family have lived there all their lives. Then the chap says that it is a stately home and it must not fall apart. So we give him money. Now we are to give him more for the upkeep of his house, which he charges people to look round while he lives in the luxury bit down the end. What nonsense. What absolute bunkum. What happens to my constituents? They have to apply for grants to insulate their homes to keep warm. I find it amazing that we give money to all this heritage nonsense. If a thing is not worth keeping or being paid for by the people who live there and benefit from it, why should my constituents have to make a contribution?
I am a sportsman. Someone has said that I am a daft one because I support Bristol Rovers and have done for 50 years. That is another leisure pursuit. Why should anyone subsidise or contribute to someone else's leisure pursuit? My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made a lovely case for squash. I did not hear him make a case for ferrets up a trouser leg. That is a sport in some parts of this country, yet that issue is not raised. That is the problem. We all want some subsidy for our own sport. It ain't going to happen.
There are Opposition Members present who support Hartlepool United. The team kick a ball around, I think. They have to ensure that people who come to watch them pay the full economic cost of keeping the club open. There is no subsidy. So why should there be subsidy for other sports? The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned chess. That is another elitist game although it is perhaps not now so elitist as it used to be. Why should we subsidise it? Why should anything from the lottery go to any sport? The issue is mad, but no one wants to go along with me. I tend to be a lone voice ploughing a lonely field.
Let us consider the millennium fund. Could someone please tell me the difference between 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000? It is probably 24 hours, half a minute or half a second. What is so important about that calendar


change that we have to set money aside for all sorts of funny things? The briefing that has just arrived from not far away says that the projects
will enhance the quality of the nation's life.
My God! The year 2000 will be marvellous—enhancing the quality of the nation's life just because the clock ticks past 11.59 pm. I have never heard so much nonsense as the idea of a millennium fund. For a change, words fail me. Members of Labour's Front-Bench team and the Liberals, when they are here, talk about whether the Secretary of State did not like the fund's director general, and whether his views did not fit in with those of the committee's other members. Now they are getting together to decide on another director, whether the national heritage man likes him, and whether the wife is sleeping with him— it is absolutely crazy.
More time should be spent running a simple lottery, in which all the winnings go to the people who buy tickets. Nobody has thought about that. If the truth were known, members of my own Front-Bench team, let alone those of the Opposition Front-Bench team, could not agree on one good cause. They talk about five good causes—it is madness. The only good cause is charities. We all, I am sure, involve ourselves in charities but we could never agree on them.
My concern is that the money does not go to a luvvies charity for the AIDS people, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust. Except for haemophiliacs, AIDS is a self-inflicted luvvies illness. It has decimated the arts world in the United States and has made a good contribution to decimating the arts world in this country. It is not a genuine charity. My Government, to their great discredit, have given about £10 billion to advertise and to tell silly stories to youngsters about the dangers of AIDS. The money given to help research into child leukaemia or into spinal injuries is tuppence ha'penny by comparison. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that on board. If I find out that organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust connected with AIDS get a penny of this, I will kick up hell in here.
One of the two charities important to me is Children with Leukaemia, based at Great Ormond Street. It used to be called the O'Gorman foundation. A father who lost two children from leukaemia decided not to feel sorry for himself but to raise money for more research. He is working his socks off, along with many other people. That important charity should get a fair crack of the whip. So should the Spinal Injuries Association. I take this opportunity to say a few kind words about Coral, which supports that work, and Malcolm Palmer, a close friend of mine, who spearheads that work. Virtually no money comes from the public sector, and certainly not from the Government, for those genuine charities. They do an excellent job of research and support.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks: No, I am running out of time. I ask my hon. Friend to sit down.
The £10 billion spent on AIDS in six years could have been used to help disabled people. What a difference that money could have made, instead of being spent on four nonsensical, so-called good causes.
I see that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is creeping into the Chamber. I am sure that he has been out for some counselling before he winds up

The lottery is good. Most ordinary, working-class people enjoy it. I have been lucky, winning three lots of £10. They are happy and I am happy. I cannot understand the concept of good causes. If my constituents managed to listen to this debate without counselling they would say, "What an elitist crowd, with all their pretensions and the sanctimonious nonsense that they talk."
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) made valid points about the lottery's organisation, but that was the only valid contribution I have heard so far.
I know this is not a day on which we can change legislation, but let us think about letting all the money, except that needed to fund the running of the lottery, go to winners. Let the people who win decide how to spend the money. Some will spend it on charitable works; some, if they are daft enough, will spend it on the arts. Some people will spend it on sport. No one with any sense would worry about the millennium. After all, many of those who win will not be around by then.
Please let us stop the pretentious nonsense about good causes. Let people enjoy the lottery. Let them keep more of the money than they are allowed to now. Let us stop bickering about technicalities. For God's sake, not a penny should go to the arty-farty crowd who walk around with their hands in someone else's back pocket.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is always interesting to be called after a speech from the hon. Member from hell—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). He emerges from his constituency like a one-man horde of vandals to lay waste to the arts and the heritage. As ever, of course, he made some good points. I am with him in his remarks about the arts establishment and the way that "these people"—I still do not know who they are—have suddenly emerged from the drawers where lists are kept of the great and the good to decide what good causes will receive money from the proceeds of the national lottery, from moneys paid in by the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Hayes and Harlington and by mine in Newham, North-West. The hon. Gentleman made some good points about the arts establishment. I am critical of it myself.
The hon. Gentleman tends to lose some of his good points in the general brutality of his argument. He is eccentric, however, and unique; we must be grateful for that if for nothing else.
I supported the concept of the lottery and I participate in it each week. I would love to win the jackpot. We have heard about the enormous odds that one faces in trying to win it, but they cannot be as enormous as the odds that were facing the Conservative party last night at the by-election at Dudley. I welcome the piece of good news that came from Dudley. I suppose that if I were given a choice between winning the jackpot and the by-election, I would choose the by-election.
There have been references to anonymity. The lottery is national and there is a great deal of interest in it. If someone enters the lottery, he must be prepared to have his name and identity revealed. If everyone understood that on going in for the lottery, we would take much of the terror from winning the biggie. When the biggie is won, it is not surprising that everyone wants to know who has won it.
We have talked about roll-over. I think that we should continue rolling over. Why should roll-over be limited? Why should someone decide that it should be restricted to three weeks? Why should the establishment say that someone might not be able to handle an enormous prize of £100 million, for example? Why not let roll-over continue until the money is won? We know that more people tend to be attracted into the lottery each week as the prize becomes greater and greater. If roll-over were allowed to continue, there would be more money to disburse to good causes. We should let that happen.
There are a few worries and problems about the national lottery so far. Some of them are fairly significant while some are quite small. Large amounts of money are being produced. I listened carefully to the Minister, who made a good speech. There were plenty of interventions because hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ask many questions about the lottery. I did not hear—perhaps I missed it—how much money is now available. More to the point, when will it be distributed? Many organisations would like to know the answer to that question. I assume that the interest that is being earned on it will remain within the kitty to add to the amount of money that will be distributed.
We understand that the arts—I shall take that sector as an example—might benefit by about £100 million a year. I have heard assurances from Ministers that there will be no substitution, and I accept their word. But, frankly, I do not think that it will happen—there will be substitution. The Treasury will consider the amount of money coming in from the lottery and the predictions. When it is conducting the annual spending round, it cannot ignore the money—in many ways, it would be irresponsible to do so. The only way to guarantee that there is no substitution is if Ministers are prepared to index the budgets of arts, sport and heritage for at least the next three years. We should then know that there was no substitution.
It might be a lottery for punters, but it is certainly not a lottery for the Government, who win the jackpot every week. The lottery should not be yet another tax-raising device—I strongly object to that. The lottery should be made a charitable foundation, which would allow an extra 12 per cent.—which the Government presently cream off—to be distributed to the good causes and the spheres of activity that we have been discussing.
As Opposition Members have said, Camelot is a privatised monopoly that has been given a licence to print money—that is objectionable. A monetary limit should be set on any profits made by Camelot—not a percentage, but a cash limit on its rake-off. Alternatively, there should be a windfall tax, although my objections to such a tax are the same as those that I have to the tax that the Government are taking from the lottery. There must be a way of ensuring that Camelot does not find itself with riches beyond the dreams of avarice without ever having to do anything significant for them. Camelot should not get money for old rope.
Another big concern is the impact that the lottery has on smaller charities, football pools and bingo. I hope that Ministers will closely monitor that impact. Clearly, the pools should be allowed to advertise. We should not start subsidising football pools or bingo, but we could take off some of the present limits on pools industry advertising

and on the sizes of the prizes that the bingo industry can distribute. Ministers must closely monitor the lottery's impact on small charities and other sections of the betting industry, and report regularly to the House of Commons.
The national lottery is national, and it has broad support across the House. The Government can maintain that support only by being honest and open with the House—I admit that that will bring some problems for Ministers.
There are some smaller but significant problems. I went to my local ticket outlet in Woodgrange road in Forest Gate and asked what problems had been experienced by shopkeepers. The location of ticket outlets needs more careful consideration. Particularly on Saturdays, there are large queues outside ticket shops, which spread down the shop fronts and along the road. Other shopkeepers complain about the impact that those queues have on their business. We must acknowledge that and start to look more carefully at locations. That problem may gradually go away as people start to spread their spending more evenly during the week. But in a working-class district such as mine, someone usually has the money in his or her pocket or purse to buy a lottery ticket on a Friday or Saturday. We need to deal with such problems.
I was told by one ticket seller that he and others like him have experienced some cash flow problems over the sales of tickets. It appears that Camelot deducts receipts by direct debit from the seller's bank account, so the seller has no control over the way the money goes out. The ticket sellers are expected to pay out the smaller prizes and can run into difficulties over their cash flow on a Saturday and Monday. They have to pay large amounts into the bank, which attracts bank charges for deposits that are not refunded by Camelot. Those are small problems in terms of the global picture, but problems enough for those small shopkeepers who are making the lottery such a great national success.
I shall be having my weekly flutter on the lottery on Saturday, and if I am not in my place on Monday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that I have either been kidnapped or have won the lottery. It is more likely to be the former than the latter, as I do not have the same luck as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I will not need any therapy to get me over the trauma of winning oodles of cash. I am saving that therapy for the victory at the general election.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: It has been a rather interesting and, at times, exciting debate. We heard detailed explanations on the national lottery, and comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who has just left the Chamber, on the value of the arts.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who, I believe, is now coming to the view that perhaps a lottery is not so morally repugnant after all. I detected in his speech a grudging acceptance that the lottery may be a very good thing indeed. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong.
Chancing one's luck is in the nature of mankind. The history of the world is awash with people consulting the stars, reading horoscopes, determining auspicious times and conducting themselves in such a manner that their fortune or misfortune is left in the laps of the gods. One


chances one's luck, even if the odds are calculated at a million to one because man is fundamentally always optimistic. Without that optimism—that tomorrow will be better than today—mankind would have made no progress whatever: progress from caves, woad and huts to the planets and the stars would not have been possible. It would not have been possible to move from subsistence living to the consumer society.
Without a sense of adventure, mankind would have stayed in his primeval state. No entrepreneurial opportunities would be possible. The underlying basis of our capitalist society would have been doomed from the start. The great merchant adventurers of the past, who chanced their luck and, more recklessly, their lives, in small, fragile sailing ships against the mighty oceans, would not have been possible. All of life has its moments of chance. Even politics, ultimately, are a gamble, as the Labour party knows only too well to its cost.
So let us have no humbug, and even less sanctimonious breast beating, that the national lottery is anything but a small expression of our people's hopes to do better for themselves by chancing their luck—and what fun it is. Since the only certainty in life is death, what happens between birth and death has a lot to do with luck. Even the act of birth itself is wrapped around the mother lode of luck. Some are born clever, some not so; some extremely intelligent, others less so; some advantaged, others disadvantaged or even, sadly, disabled. Some, particularly in Asia, call it karma: others of us in the west call it luck.
So let there be luck. Let it flourish and pour forth. Let us all enable as many as possible to be lucky. Let them empower themselves with optimism. Let them look forward to better things. Let them play the national lottery—and, so far, what a success it has been.
Lotteries in the UK are not new. In 1569 the Cinque ports were repaired by raising funds through a lottery. Even Westminster bridge and the British museum were funded by national lotteries.
The national lottery set up by this Conservative Government has all the hallmarks of being a permanent and resounding success. It is a success because it is generating huge sums of money for theatres, sports centres, swimming pools, the restoration of historic buildings and for charities, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Minister.
Between now and 2001, more than £10 billion will be made available, equally, to the arts, heritage, sports, charities and the millennium fund. That is £2 billion to each of those good causes. Can one imagine what £2 billion will do for the arts, for heritage, for sport, for charities and for the millennium fund? The mind reels at the possibilities and opportunities, especially in Brentford and Isleworth.
We now face another renaissance in Britain, which is due entirely to the imagination, innovation and drive of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for National Heritage. That renaissance was nurtured, inculcated, enthused and brought into being by an imaginative Government in the teeth of opposition from the Liberal Democrat party—I notice that all its members have left the Chamber—and many Labour Members. Let us never again hear from the Liberals that theirs is the party of culture, the arts, heritage, sport and charitable projects. They have paused and they have been found wanting. They lacked the imagination, spirit and grit to further those great and good causes and have left

the stage to the boring old Conservative party to create this renaissance in our cultural life. How ironic and ridiculous, but how poignant. Never again will we have the arty Liberal or the culturally sophisticated, articulate and all-things-to-all-men Liberal. As for the Labour Members who opposed the national lottery—as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some did—they will learn that they made a mistake.
The national lottery is a success because it is well managed: knowing how to manage things well is what the Conservative Government know best. That is why the Camelot group was chosen, after the most competitive tendering and bidding process, which drove down costs and maximised the money available to good causes. To instal 10,000 on-line, computer-based, real-time outlets, as it did by 19 November—with a projected 40,000 later—was a massive logistical undertaking. It was done, and at a huge cost to the operator, yet it will receive only up to 5 per cent. of turnover to cover those expenses and profits. As a business man, I can say that the Government did a brilliant deal. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on striking such a good deal, while enabling more than 50 per cent. of the turnover to go in prizes and between 28 per cent. and 33 per cent. to good causes and, to cap it all, reducing the burden on the taxpayer by having 12 per cent. go to the Exchequer. It almost sounds too good to be true, but true it is, no doubt much to the chagrin of the Opposition.
We are the party of good management, of which the national lottery is a prime example. The £10 billion that will be raised for good causes during the next seven or eight years will be managed well because the Arts Council will distribute the arts fund. The primary criteria for distribution will be the maximisation of benefit to the greatest number of people including, most important, providing maximum access for the disabled; the long-term viability of the project; quality of artistic activity planned; relevance of the project to local regional and national artistic life; and the quality of the educational and marketing proposals.
The Arts Council's lottery director said:
Not all grants will go to large scale projects. We can help a small touring company, or buy a van or a portable lighting rig. We can help to improve a village hall and help to improve the access of all arts facilities to disabled people.
The lottery is well managed because the heritage funds will be distributed by the national heritage memorial fund and the Sports Council will distribute funds for locally based sports projects. A new National Lottery Charities Board will be established to provide for charities.
Most exciting of all is the millennium fund, which will be run by the millennium commissioners, whose work will endure when we are all gone. Not only will the fabric of our great buildings and monuments be restored to their former glory, but the achievements will include an international trade fair to boast about Britain's innovations in design, millennium bursaries for young people undertaking special projects and studies, the endowment of chairs at universities to study the enhancement of the quality of life and special prestigious monuments to mark the third millennium. It will be a lasting and enduring one.
Today we have heard some excellent speeches—although I see that most of my hon. Friends have had to leave—especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). We also discussed another


important aspect: privacy. Privacy for lottery winners is important for the continued success of the lottery. It is important not only for the person who wins, but for the lottery as a whole. Winners do not want publicity because they wish to avoid being harassed and pestered. If there is no possibility of publicity, people will buy tickets. However, the feeling that they will be harassed and pestered if, on the off-chance, they win, is a disincentive to try the national lottery. It is time, therefore, that we strengthened our privacy laws, if only to protect the ordinary citizen.
Why be begrudging? Are the Opposition incapable of stating what is obvious? The national lottery is a success. Good causes will benefit enormously and the Government have done a very good job indeed.

Mr. Joe Benton: I am speaking as a kind of new boy to the heritage scene and to the lottery scene, although I must admit that I was one of the Opposition Members who voted against the lottery. My reasons for doing so were quite parochial: along with many other Merseyside Members of Parliament, I rightly feared for the future of the pools industry. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) express concerns about the pools industry, with which I totally agree and support.
As a new boy, I found the debate most entertaining and most enlightening. Having given my reasons for voting against the lottery, I must say that the debate was enlightening in the sense that this morning—I want to make it clear as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) misheard an awful lot—there was ready admission among Labour Members that the lottery has elements of great success. I say that although I opposed it. Labour Members are not really saying that it is not successful. We are approaching the matter from another angle.
I criticise the Government for many reasons, many of which have already been mentioned adequately by my hon. Friends. Hon. Members have referred to the area that most concerns me—charities. I am very disappointed. We have learned, for example, that there is no chief executive in place on the National Lottery Charities Board.
I want to emphasise my concern by reading to the House a letter that I received only this week. It exemplifies all our concerns about the future of charities. That concern was another reason why I voted against the lottery in the first place. My fears were not only for local employment but for the impact that the lottery would have on small charities.
I can do no better than quote the letter that I received from Mr. Kevin Hookham, the chief fund-raising manager at the Liverpool school of tropical medicine. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the function of that establishment. I can tell the House that it goes back almost a century. It has charitable status and has supplemented the health service on Merseyside and in the north of England. Indeed, it has a national and a

worldwide reputation. The contribution that it has made to tropical science and diseases is renowned. Mr. Hookham says:
I telephoned the NLCB on 29 November. I was shocked and surprised to be informed that no moneys were yet available for distribution, even though at the time of writing at least four Lottery games will have been played with the result that, cumulatively, there must be now millions of pounds awaiting dispersal to charitable and needy causes. In addition, I was informed that no application form actually exists but the charities would be consulted 'early next year' (no specific date could be given). When I asked which specific charities would be consulted and which methodology would govern the consultation process, I was told, 'that had not yet been decided'.
I was also aware that no announcement regarding the appointment 'of a Chief Executive to the NLCB has yet been made and was informed that 'interviews are being held in December'. This is totally unsatisfactory. It is reasonable to assume that the calibre required of a potential Chief Executive would require three months' notice and therefore it is unlikely that an incumbent could take up post prior to March 1995.

Mr. Deva: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the funds had been distributed too hastily, he or one of his hon. Friends would have said that the wrong criterion had been applied and the wrong methodology used? The Government are trying to take care in considering the distribution of funds. Is he saying that that is wrong?

Mr. Benton: Everything should be examined properly and correctly, but there is no reason why the Government should not be ready to deal with the fundamental aspect of the national lottery. The Government have been tardy and unprepared and that is quite unjustified. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate what I am trying to explain—that the continuing success of the lottery will depend on satisfying people, whose number has not been quantified, who have been inspired to spend money on it because of its identification with charitable and worthy causes. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that many people have bought lottery tickets for that reason. The Government and the charities board should be prepared to deal with the worthy aims of the lottery.
Although the Minister is not in his place, I must put pointed questions because my constituents and I and the Liverpool school of tropical science need satisfactory answers. When will a definite date be given for the appointment of the chief executive? When will charities be given the opportunity to apply for funds and what process will be used for distribution? Will the charities board assure us that interest on the millions of pounds already collected for distribution to charities and voluntary organisations will be made available to the charities fund?
Those are reasonable requests on matters that are causing concern throughout the country. At the risk of repeating myself, may I say that the charities angle will lead to increased success for the lottery?
Much of what I wanted to say has already been said by my hon. Friends who covered the issues exactly and precisely. All I want are assurances on those points. I should like the Minister to deal with them in reply because, at this stage, people who contribute to the national lottery in aid of good causes should be confident and assured about the points that I have raised.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Unlike the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), I am not burdened by a knowledge of the wonderful arguments and comments that have been made hitherto in the debate because I have only just been able to come into the Chamber. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me but I am afraid that I shall have to leave shortly after my few remarks. I know that his remarks will be of uplifting interest to all hon. Members.
I know that the House will forgive me for expressing some sense of pride in the success of the national lottery since, if I had not been able to present my private Member's Bill, I doubt very much whether we would have a lottery at this stage. It was inevitable that, at some time, some Government or other would have decided that a national lottery was a good thing because it is so self-evidently is. Apart from Albania, we were the last country in the civilised world to have a lottery. If we are the only country that is marching in the wrong direction, it is reasonable to suppose that we are wrong and that the others are right. I therefore have some considerable pride in having played perhaps a small but significant part in this outstanding success.

Mr. Tony Banks: Hear, hear.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who does not always give plaudits to Conservative Members. I am grateful also for his support during the debate on the private Member's Bill. One of its strengths was its all-party nature and the way in which party politics was subsumed. It is always a cheering matter when hon. Members forget their party political conflicts and unite, especially when they do so in a great cause, as the national lottery is becoming.
I congratulate Camelot on a most outstanding achievement. Before everything had been set up and was under way, we were, of course, apprehensive. I was concerned that we should not start or end up with a state lottery that was run, organised, led and funded in the early stages by the Government. We have not had that and we shall not have it as the private enterprise success develops.
The way in which the national lottery has been publicised, the way in which the public have been prepared for it and the public's response to Camelot's campaign have led to the lottery's outstanding success, with £53 million being raised for good causes in only four weeks. If only the Government could raise money as simply and as painlessly. The amount raised will be £9 billion by 2001. Already, fascinating signs exist of how the raising of the quality of life is beginning to permeate through society.
I know from experience that one or two small newsagent shops were having some difficulty prior to the lottery. One of them now takes 7,000 to 8,000 lottery tickets a week and its take has increased by £400 a week. It means that small shops all over Britain which are now outlets will be able to stay open when they might otherwise have closed, and others have become prosperous when they might not otherwise have prospered. That means jobs. It has been estimated that when all the outlets are operating and when all the benefits of the lottery are spread throughout society, the provision of building works for charities, the arts and

sport will mean that many more building workers are employed. We can expect an addition of about 80,000 people in work as a result of the national lottery.

Mr. Banks: The hon. and learned Gentleman was here, I think, when I made my speech. The small shopkeepers who sell the tickets are having some problems. I know that the Minister was not in his place when I was speaking, but I hope that he will look at the problems. The profit margins are not particularly generous and there are cash flow problems. There is also the problem of interference with other people's trade because of the siting of the machines in certain locations. They are small matters, but they are significant to those selling the tickets.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the Minister and Camelot have taken a close interest in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I give an example. In the first week, there was one small outlet in Uttoxeter in my constituency. It was outside the centre of the town and everyone went there to buy lottery tickets. The owner of the shop said that the rest of his trade had fallen because there were such queues that people could not get in to carry out their normal business. That problem is resolved by siting the lottery machine away from the main till and the main operations of the shop. The queue becomes shorter, people proceed more quickly and there is then no interference with the shop's other work. The main solution to the problem is to have more than one outlet in Uttoxeter. I understand that Camelot is working on that.
I was privileged to be a guest at the table of Sir Ron Dearing, the chairman of Camelot, on the night of the launch. I somehow managed to be a winner in the first lottery, albeit that the £10 will not alter my life. 'The launch also enabled me to discuss various matters with Sir Ron. A point that I was especially anxious to get across to him—I think that he will respond positively to it—is that it is not just the newsagents and small shops in towns that should benefit.
Small village stores have been closing at a tremendous rate of knots, unfortunately, partly because of the attractions of the bigger towns and partly because they were the sub-post offices and it was impossible to find enough people to staff some of them. I thought that a new lease of life would be injected into village shops and that they would be kept alive and flourishing as a result of the lottery. That has not happened so far. The reason is, as I understand it, that Camelot places a threshold on the catchment area of the likely purchasers of tickets be fore it allows the machines in. I have asked Sir Ron Dearing—on asking, I got an encouraging response—that the matter be looked into. If we can lower the threshold of the available pool of players so that village shops can flourish, the lottery could make an even more substantial contribution to the quality of life.
The other matter that filled me with a great deal of pleasure was the sheer number of winners. I had my doubts about £10 prizes, but when a million people win in a week and when 800,000 win the following week, it is tremendously heartening. All right, they are not winning the big prizes, but to win something, to get one's money back plus and to feel that one has a real chance of getting some return is heartening. I know that that will go on.
Another great advantage has been the way in which the television programme has taken over a time that stops me from having to watch "Blind Date". For others who feel as I do about "Blind Date", it is a blessed relief to turn over to watch the lottery, even for 15 minutes.

Mr. Banks: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that. Quite frankly, seeing Noel Edmonds playing around with a load of balls is not very appealing to me. May I take him back to the point that he was making about the small prizes? He missed some of the speeches this morning, but there is an argument about whether people want bigger prizes. The great incentive for ticket sales is that people know that there is a biggie at the end of the line. It is fine for there to be lots of £10 prizes, but people do not buy lottery tickets because they are looking for £10.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a biggie; there is a too biggie and a medium biggie. The wooden spoon—the consolation prize of £10—is a substantial bonus to people who have bought tickets.
Success always breeds problems in life and the outstanding success of the national lottery has bred some problems. Perhaps the most notable is the problem of what to do when the top prize amounts to £18 million. Nearly everybody would agree that nobody needs £18 million and that £2 million, £3 million or £4 million might be all that a reasonable person might need for enjoying the best standard of life. I think there is a general feeling throughout the country at the moment that if someone can win £18 million because the previous week's winnings can roll over again for as many as three times, goodness knows what might happen. There is no reason to suppose that, if the jackpot has reached £18 million in four weeks, in another four or 40 weeks it might not be considerably in excess of that. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) as she was one of the most stalwart supporters of the private Member's Bill.

Ms Hoey: I am pleased that we have a national lottery. It is a pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not here earlier. He said that there was a general feeling that the very large prizes were too much, but I do not agree that that was the general feeling in the House and we discussed the point quite extensively this morning.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The general feeling in the House is not necessarily the general feeling among the public. I am afraid that applies to too many issues and, certainly on Conservative Benches, we are learning that very fast.
Outside, people think that £18 million is a bit too much. It could be corrected so that, as one of my hon. Friends constructively said—I do not know whether it has been repeated this morning—the number of roll-overs is reduced and, if the fund builds up, one third of it is reallocated to the good causes, one third of it is spent in additional prizes and the remaining third rolled over. That would be a pretty sensible and fair breakdown to reduce the excesses of the No. 1 prize and perhaps, as the hon.

Member for Vauxhall said, to increase the number of alternative high prizes which would be an attractive element in the lottery.

Mr. Deva: I have followed my hon. and learned Friend's career with great interest and I was surprised to hear him say that he considers one sum is too much and another sum is not too much. Will he spend a few minutes trying to explain the philosophy behind why one amount is too much and another quantity is not too much?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall not go down that line. I am not here to philosophise at large and to talk without considered thought because the time of the House is too precious. Although a company may make unlimited profits and use the money to expand its business, employ more people and produce more products, when we are talking about putting money into the pocket of an individual or family with a limited scope for expenditure, perhaps—I would not go to the stake on it—if we can spread the wealth of the lottery more widely, we may provide more benefits than by concentrating too much in the pockets of an individual or family. I do not want to spend any more time on that point. I think that it is a problem that we can resolve and it is certainly not the most important or serious problem currently facing the country.
The second problem that has arisen is the question of anonymity. Most people are appalled by the thought that having bought a ticket on the assurance that one's identity will not be revealed, it is then revealed. Even though it has not yet been blasted all over the tabloid newspapers, everyone in Blackburn knows who is the winner of the lottery. The consequences of suddenly visiting such wealth upon an unassuming, law-abiding citizen are potentially very grave and serious. We do not need to list the obvious problems, whether massive numbers of begging letters, desperate people camping outside the door, threats or criminal activity. All those possibilities have to be thought about and worried over and, quite apart from a person's right to keep himself to himself, they are reasons why anonymity should be respected. I am sure that that is what people throughout the country feel.
The immediate reaction to the judicial decision that the injunction upholding anonymity should be lifted was one of disgust. It was wrongly directed—it was not the judge's fault that the law did not enable anonymity to be secured by an injunction or by any other means. There is a privity of contract between the person who buys a lottery ticket and the provider of that ticket and it is binding between those parties. If Camelot says that it will guarantee anonymity, that is a contractual undertaking that can be protected by the law. However, a third, fourth or fifth party, the press, or anybody else, is not bound by somebody else's contractual undertaking. That is the law and at the moment it is inadequate to protect the anonymity of an individual in such circumstances.
There are three ways in which anonymity could be protected. First, the media could take a self-denying ordinance and not cause misery to the otherwise fortunate winner through the publication of his name. However, to expect the press to have a self-denying ordinance of any sort would be somewhat optimistic in the present climate. Obviously, people will buy more newspapers if an individual is exposed as a lottery winner. Even though this week the media have refrained from naming the winner, it


is unrealistic to expect them to be able to control themselves indefinitely. Therefore, I do not think that that would be a practical way of guaranteeing anonymity.
Parliament could make it a criminal offence for someone to disclose the name and particulars of a winner. However, that is not the way to use the criminal law and, anyway, it would be almost impossible to prove that the offence had been committed by someone and it would take an inordinate amount of police time. It is not the sort of public wrong that the law should remedy, even if it were practicable to do so. The breaches of anonymity which are likely to happen will inevitably, however, hasten the day when we introduce a tort of privacy. I should welcome that. I regret that we do not have one already. As Sir David Calcutt said in his examination on two occasions of the abuses of press power, a tort of privacy is the sensible conclusion to which one must be driven.
Unfortunately, the press is so powerful in public life now that it can destroy individuals. I know of a former parliamentary colleague who was destroyed by the media for daring to introduce a Bill of privacy. Not only that, the press can, by implication, bring pressure to bear on entire political parties. If we come to consider whether going to war with the press is a good idea as we move towards the next general election, I should think that plenty of voices will, say that there are plenty of things that we need to do other than pick a fight with the press.
The effect is that the media—in particular the press, but not only the press—including the broadcasting media have always been set against permitting us to introduce a tort of privacy which might restrict the ambit of press activity. When Kelvin MacKenzie was the editor of The Sun, he did not make any secret of the fact that he intended to make life difficult for anyone who thought that the abuses of the press were so excessive that legislation ought to be introduced against them.
I cannot see any way of guaranteeing the anonymity of a very substantial winner other than a tort of privacy. A tort of privacy is inevitable and I look forward to its introduction in due course. Perhaps in due course, when the economy is more flourishing, the press might be able to obtain income from advertising, which has been in decline in recent years. When the press is able to expand along that line, perhaps it will be less determined to go in for the extravagance which has been a feature of its activity in recent times and, therefore, less strong in its objection to a tort of privacy, which would enhance the quality of life of individuals in our society, as the lottery is doing in a different arena and on a different scale.
The problems that I have outlined are the problems of success. To some degree they may be solved in the coming months and years. At any rate, this national charity has seen off the whiners, whingers, killjoys and the Liberal Democrats, who opposed the concept of a national lottery. I am delighted that some Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Bootle, who were against the national lottery, now feel that its advantages have outweighed its disadvantages.
I know that there is anxiety about charities. There always was. We were told during the proceedings on my Bill that charities' income had fallen in Ireland since the introduction of the national lottery. That argument was not well sustained in the light of the fact that charities' income had fallen in Northern Ireland where there was not a national lottery. I never thought that charities would

suffer as a result of the lottery. If someone knocks on the door and asks for a fiver for the church roof, the scout hut or some pet cause, people are unlikely to say, "I am sorry. I would have given, but I have bought a lottery ticket this week." I do not believe that sort of thing happens in ordinary life.
I appreciate that overall income might have reduced in some cases, but the Government were particularly careful to avoid that with steps to improve the position of charities. Prizes can increase to £25,000 or 10 per cent. of turnover, and the allowable turnover has increased to £500,000. Restrictions on preventing one body from running too many lotteries have been lifted. Given the 'small effect of the national lottery on charities that have total turnover of £15 billion, they will not suffer even if they are not to be lottery beneficiaries. It is not just that they have 20 per cent. of the 28 per cent. Arts, sport, heritage and the millennium are all charities, and charities will be substantially enhanced by the lottery.
I thank Camelot and Peter Davis, Director General of Oflot, for their activities in getting this great ship of quality of life launched. I thank also the Government—not only my hon. Friend the Minister who graces us with his presence today but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—without whose driving force in the Cabinet the lottery would not have got off the ground.
We can all share pride, and perhaps the greatest pride of all is knowing that apart from obvious exceptions, the overwhelming feeling of all parties in the House is that the lottery was a good thing, is a good thing and will continue to be a good thing—and that it will raise the standard of living and quality of life of millions of people in Britain today.

Mr. Fisher: This interesting debate has been notable for agreement in all parts of the House that the national lottery is a good project, has great potential for giving pleasure, and can address important social and cultural problems. There was also a measure of agreement on the need for scrutiny and on key issues such as anonymity. My hon. Friends the Members for. Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton) all made good speeches and raised pertinent questions that need answering by the Minister when he replies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle asked questions about the National Lottery Charities Board to which the Minister must respond. Why has it not yet been established? Why is there no chief executive? Why will charity grant applications not be received until the middle of next year? Why will money not be paid to charities until the second half of next year at the earliest? That is sheer incompetence.
The Home Secretary—not Mr. David Sieff, chairman of the charities board—must be held responsible. He has known the requirements for more than a year. If the Department of National Heritage can get its boards right—and it is to be congratulated on doing that, and the Arts Council in particular is to be congratulated on its excellent documents—why cannot the Home Secretary do so? I suspect that it is a matter of considerable


embarrassment to the Department of National Heritage. There is no reason for it. The Home Office must get started soon, and the Minister must say on behalf of the Home Secretary—why he should have to answer for the Home Secretary, I do not know—what steps will now be taken to put the matter right. It is not satisfactory.

Mr. Deva: Does the hon. Gentleman responsible for sports in the Labour party agree that the best possible criteria must be evolved to decide how moneys are distributed, and that that must be done before we distribute them?

Mr. Fisher: I agree entirely, but that is true also of the four other boards, which have their acts together. I am drawing attention to the fact that a board has not even been set up by the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been disgracefully incompetent and he should be called to account.
A problem that has not been raised is the distortion of the entire charity world. The guidelines that have been published so far specify that only charities that are concerned with the needs of people qualify. However, there are many other charitable bodies that focus on human rights, animals and a range of other subjects. If the guidelines are to be adhered to, such charities will not qualify.
If the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is correct and charity donations will be affected, to be offset by £100 million to £150 million a year, that offset will apply only to charities that deal with human needs. Only those charities will qualify. Other charitable sectors, such as animal welfare, will not benefit. Such charities will be doubly prejudiced and disadvantaged. The Minister should consider that and perhaps vary the guidelines.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my arguments. I hope also that he will give us up-to-date figures and details of the dates of distribution. I hope also that he will respond to the questions that I have asked about eligibility for science, libraries, children's play, English Heritage, film and one or two other matters. The hon. Gentleman needs to put the record straight. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, I hope that he will respond on the need for privacy law and also on the Calcutt report. We have waited too long for responses on both issues. The Minister should now get ready to present them.
I would like to think that the Minister will give reassurances on the other key issues that have been raised today. I refer to the status and future of small projects throughout the country, the problems between capital and revenue, those of additionality and those relating to the restraints on Camelot's profits, as well as others concerning anonymity and roll-over. I suspect that on those wider issues he will not be able to satisfy the House. He must, however, respond on the National Lottery Charities Board and give us some up-to-date figures so that we know where we are.

Mr. Sproat: With the leave of the House, may I say that it is a great pleasure to be back at the Government Dispatch Box after such a long interval and after such a short contribution from the Opposition Front Bench in

reply to the debate? I did not expect such brevity, but I would need the full half hour that is now at my disposal, if events so pan out, to answer the many extremely interesting questions that have been raised so far.
I shall start with a response to an intervention in my first speech this morning from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The hon. Gentleman asked me if I had read an article in last night's Evening Standard. I said that I had not, and he kindly passed me the newspaper during the debate. So riveting were the speeches at that time that I found that although I read the article, I had not taken it in. I shall read it in privacy with concentration and in due course send the hon. Gentleman .a letter setting out my responses.
The last shall be first in this instance, and I shall start with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and respond to his comments in his opening speech. First, I thank him for his kind words about certain aspects of the lottery. It is fair to say that there are worries, and I shall deal with each of them in due course. I hope that the House will agree that I have not sought to disguise that there are some legitimate concerns about what has happened. I believe that they are all minor and that the lottery has been an overwhelming success. I shall readily deal with issues such as anonymity and roll-over which were raised in the debate.
When the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central began his speech he offered kind words, as is his wont, but then gave some less kindly words about the Government's performance, as is also his wont. He used the word "complacent". I cannot remember whether he chucked it at me or the Government as a whole or spread it around the Chamber, but I can assure him that we are not complacent.
I shall not repeat all that I said earlier, but the national lottery is a massive innovation in our public life. It is inconceivable that such a major innovation could be introduced without a number of things going wrong. With the exception of the problem of privacy, other difficulties have, in the main, been small. I do not discount the disappointment of hon. Members whose constituencies have not received as many terminals as they would have wished, or in whose constituencies terminals have gone wrong. I do not underestimate those problems, but they are not enormous in the overall context of the national lottery.
The national lottery has been going for only four weeks—since 14 November, the day on which tickets could first be bought. It would be unreasonable to say, after the experience of four weeks, that we must change things immediately. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was not saying that. We shall look closely at a number of matters, notwithstanding the fact that the national lottery has been going for only four weeks. We shall continue to look carefully at the way in which the lottery proceeds.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was buoyed up by his party's success last night, on which I congratulate him. We all have ups and downs in politics and I advise him to be happy while he can because the evil day followeth as surely as night followeth day. The hon. Gentleman said that everything was going wrong for the Government—what nonsense. I agree that last night's result was one of our less happy moments, but whatever may be going wrong, the lottery is not—it is an overwhelming success. While I am eager to investigate


those aspects that can be improved, as I said at the beginning of the debate, the lottery is certainly a great success.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central set out three principles by which he thought that the lottery should be operated. He said that it should be free of undue political influence. Obviously, the House of Commons has an influence on the lottery. The principle that lay behind the choice of distributor bodies was to place at arm's length decisions on which projects should be supported and how much money should go to them from the Government of the day. We put such decisions in the hands of the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the national heritage memorial fund and the two new organisations, the charities board and the Millennium Commission.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was altogether serious—I detected a slight note of carping, criticism or even a lighter touch on the tiller—about having only one member chosen by the Opposition. We did not want the Millennium Commission to be politically dominated by the Government and thought it right for the Secretary of State for National Heritage, whoever he or she might be, to be its chairman. To show that it was not a party political decision, we deliberately said that one member should be chosen by the Opposition. They wisely chose a man of the calibre of Mr. Michael Montague. We did not intend the commission to be a political organisation and the fact that we invited the Opposition to nominate somebody shows that we were keen to adopt the fair principle that it was not to be a party political matter.
The hon. Gentleman said that the next principle that he would like to see applied would be open finance, which I took to mean accountability. I outlined the percentage figures earlier: 50 per cent. goes to prize winners, 12 per cent. to the Treasury, 5 per cent. to retailers, and 5 per cent. to Camelot—that is 5 per cent. over seven years; it may rise or fall a little. The rest, which amounts to some 27 or 28 per cent., should be divided between the various bodies. I think that that is a pretty fair and open system.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) suggested in her very interesting speech, as did the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that one should put a monetary ceiling on what the company could earn. I understand why that might be thought, but that is getting on to dangerous ground, because the company would then say, "Well, wait a minute. We've invested £100 million up front. If it's a failure we would like a safety net beneath it." Whereas we said, "No, it will be 5 per cent. It is a risk. In some years you may do well and in some years you may do less well." That is a fair and open way to do it. It covers all the expenditure made by Camelot.
The question of ICL computers was raised, but whether the sum that is paid to ICL is high or low—personally I have no idea, as I know nothing about the computer sales market or about looking after computer terminal markets—it is coming out of the 5 per cent. already agreed. It is not a case of whether, if ICL had charged less, the money would have gone to charities.

Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the national lottery is a licence to print money. There was no doubt from the word go that it would be a success. A number of people wanted the franchise to organise the lottery. I ask the Minister to think on, because if—I am sure that it will—the lottery goes from strength to strength, enormous windfall gains

will be coming to Camelot. It could be very embarrassing to the Minister in the end. Perhaps he should think of a formula now.

Mr. Sproat: No doubt when the franchise comes to an end in 2001, or in the run-up to 2001, those matters will be looked at. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman—it has been said before, but it bears repeating—that the more money that Camelot makes as its percentage, by definition the more money goes to the charities. It was in the interest of whichever company ran the lottery to do extremely well, because that was the best way in which to ensure that charities did well. Perhaps Opposition Members have reservations about the role of the private sector, but I believe that this is the best way in which to do it.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall said that she would have liked to have seen a charitable trust run the lottery, rather than a private sector company. Charitable trusts could have applied, but none did. They would not have been ruled out if they had done so. On balance, the choice of a private sector company in general, and Camelot in particular, was well made.
As to Camelot's percentage to cover its operating costs and profits, I have looked around the world at the percentage taken by other bodies running lotteries, and have not been able to find a single body doing it on a leaner margin than Camelot. Camelot's margin was the leanest of all those who applied, and was leaner than Virgin. There was a misunderstanding about what Virgin wanted. I think that it is right that a private sector company is driving the lottery forward. In Camelot, with its lean percentage to cover operating costs and margins, we have the right company.

Ms Hoey: The Minister said that we will be able to consider the matter in 2001. Is he saying that no changes can be made to any of Camelot's operating costs and so forth between now and then?

Mr. Sproat: In the House, one is always under pressure to be a little more succinct and shorthand than one should be. I was trying to say that a new franchisee will be chosen in 2001. In the run-up, we will no doubt consider whether there were elements in the way in which Camelot was chosen on which we would want to improve for the new franchisee. I cannot think of any major ones off the top of my head. Camelot applied with all the other applicants on a level playing field, and won. In general and in particular it would not be fair to change the laws of the game and move the goal posts once it had got under way. That was all that I was trying to say.
The third principle that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned in his opening speech was that the proceeds should be fairly distributed. They are fairly distributed as far as sports, the arts, national heritage and the millennium fund are concerned, if only in the sense that each gets the same percentage-20 per cent. The proceeds include the prize money, and I will mention the roll-over later, without going into the arguments again. The main Government element, the tax of 12 per cent. to the Treasury and the 20 per cent. to each of the distributing boards, is fair.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked whether we would reconsider the effect on the football pools and charities. Yes, of course we will. I wrote to the Pools Promoters Association some weeks ago to tell it how grateful we were for its support for the Foundation


for Sport and the Arts, which brings in about £60 million a year—£40 million to sport and £20 million to the arts—which is certainly not to be sniffed at, and for its support for the Football Trust.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned safety at sports grounds, which I will deal with in full when I deal with her speech, but we owe a great deal to the pools promoters and once the lottery has had fair time—it might be a year, nine months or 18 months—we will study the matter again and decide whether they have been fairly treated, which is what I told them. We made a number of concessions to them. We reduced to 16 the age at which people could participate, allowed coupons to be sold in shops, allowed a roll-over and allowed them to sponsor television programmes.
I heard what the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and for Vauxhall said—that the pool promoters should be allowed to advertise and not merely to sponsor and that is one of the issues that we shall consider. The House in its wisdom—before I was in charge of such matters—decided that that was the way that it should be.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central properly mentioned the departure of Mr. Hinton as the chief executive of the Millennium Commission. I can tell him all that I know, which is that Mr. Hinton is a man of very great abilities, who impressed very much at the initial interview. When he was nominated and it came to trying to work with the commissioners, however, they found that his and their ideas did not gel. Far from the first payment from the lottery funds going to pay off Mr. Hinton, I regret that I have only just discovered that that payment came not from the lottery but from my Department's funds, so that is a double blow for me. I give my word to the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I know, there is no more to it than that. He can always ask the commissioners and find out whether their view is different.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned a private sector monopoly, horrendous profits and so forth. I do not want to go over that again. We decided that private sector companies were the best way. Hon. Members may not agree, but the House so decided and what has since happened—in terms of the benefits to good causes—shows that that was a pretty good decision on balance.
We now come to the question of the National Lottery Charities Board, which several hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised it in his opening remarks and again in his brief second speech. Most of the matters that he raised are, indeed, a matter for the Home Office and if he is concerned about those matters beyond what I shall say now—I shall answer directly the questions of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) as well—he may table questions to the Home Secretary.
However, this may be a suitable moment to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Bootle. He asked when a chief executive will be appointed. The answer is, as I understand it, that the members of the board had a chief executive in mind and they were about to appoint him when he was offered another job in the City. So now they are negotiating again to see whether they can consider another pay package for him. It is nothing to do with me, but the hon. Gentleman asked the fair question and the answer is that it is under negotiation and I expect

the decision to be announced fairly shortly, in the next few weeks. That is why it has not been announced already.
The hon. Member for Bootle then asked when the charities could apply for funds—a point which was reinforced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I cannot tell him the exact answer to that because the structure of the way in which applications should be made by the charities to the board is currently being discussed between the board and Mr. Sieff. I hope that they will come up with an answer fairly shortly. All I can tell him is that the chairman of the board has said that the first sums of money handed out to the charities will be in September and that will certainly mean that applications will have to be in several months before that. So, we are probably talking about midsummer. The hon. Member for Bootle may not like the answer but he asked for it and that is it.
In response to the pertinent question of whether interest will be earned in the meantime on moneys in the distribution fund, the answer is yes. Interest will be earned and so the charities will get the benefit of that when applications are made and granted.
I shall now return to the question about the millennium fund which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked. Yes, it is very important that the fund is nationwide. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to that important point in his speech. It is essential that the millennium fund considers things on a United Kingdom basis and it will do so. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked whether it would be fairer to small bodies and smaller applications than the dozen major landmark projects. Yes, it will seek to do so.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out the difficulty. One says that one wants some smaller projects, but what happens if none of them is very good? The short answer if that one has a problem. The millennium commissioners will take into account the facts that the fund must be nationwide and that they want smaller projects; no doubt, they will find their way to solve that conundrum when they have the applications before them. It is not easy to discuss in principle. In practice, I do not think that it will be so difficult. If the hon. Gentleman feels in due course that the commissioners have got it wrong, no doubt he will say so. However, I promise him that I share entirely his view that small projects should get a fair crack of the whip.
The hon. Gentleman asked a list of questions on what will happen to various institutions such as libraries. They will be able to apply for funds from the national heritage memorial fund for new buildings and the refurbishment of existing buildings where facilities are needed for library collections that are important to the national heritage. They can also apply for projects which fall under the definition of capital, such as cataloguing. I cannot see another example in my notes, which just say that they can apply in some circumstances. Cataloguing is a good example of where libraries certainly could apply and could be granted funds.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister's voice dropped when he was describing the libraries' eligibility. He seemed to qualify the eligibility for libraries by saying that only those library projects which deal with the national heritage would be eligible. He will understand that there are very important


library projects relating to new information technology, the super-highway, and community arts. Libraries do much more than conserve the national literary heritage. I am sure that the Minister's response was carefully worded. Is he saying that only library issues that relate to conserving the national heritage will qualify? If he is, that is a serious mistake and he should look at the matter again.

Mr. Sproat: If I did drop my voice it was due to weariness after four and a half hours in the Chamber, for one and a half hours of which I have been on my feet. The hon. Gentleman mentions many library projects that he would like to see supported. Support for most of those will come from Department of the Environment funds which go to local authorities, because it is up to local authorities to distribute those. I said that libraries would be eligible for NHMF funds but just in those areas for which that fund is responsible. Normal library expenses must be covered in the normal way, otherwise they would breach the additionality principle which states that no lottery money should be used for any project that is normally eligible for Government funding.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister is saying that a really imaginative library project that looked to the future of public libraries and had to do with new technologies such as CD-Rom would not be eligible because it was unconnected with national heritage. That is an extraordinary statement, and the Government seem to have missed an opportunity. They say that they are keen on the new generation of information technology, but the Minister's statement seems to deny that. Libraries will be at the centre of that technology and will be the point of contact for most people. As well as being good in their own right, these imaginative new projects are surely ideal millennium projects to celebrate going into the new information age. If what the Minister says is the last word, the Government are circumscribing libraries far too much and I urge them to think again.

Mr. Sproat: All I am saying is that libraries will not be eligible for lottery funds to cover aspects for which they would normally get funding from the local authority which was responsible for them. I agree that super-highways and the other matters that the hon. Gentleman mentions are important, but funds for them will not come from the national lottery. Perhaps a library can devise a millennium application that would cover them, in which case good luck to it. I am not knocking the importance of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentions: I am just saying that they would not normally be eligible for lottery funding.
The hon. Gentleman told us to think again. I am glad to tell him that the Government are prescient in great things as in small, and we are currently conducting a public library review. All these matters will be given true consideration.
Organisers of children's play can apply to the Sports Council and if it thinks that a proposal is a good idea, it will cough up. I have another powerful piece of prose to read out on science. Science can benefit from funds from the Millennium Commission. The national heritage memorial fund will also make money available for projects to improve access to scientific collections and museums, which is an important way to introduce people to science.
The Arts Council will deal with film. Applications for the making of new films or the protection of archives can be made through the Arts Council, which will take the advice of the British Film Institute in arriving at a decision. The hon. Gentleman asked about English Heritage. It will be eligible for money from the lottery, but a series of Chinese walls will have to be constructed because English Heritage is also an adviser to the NHMF. In cases where English Heritage applies for lottery funds, the fund will take independent advice from an outside adviser who is not in English Heritage. This is a difficult issue. We must watch it closely and ensure that it does not become incestuous and that Chinese walls are not breached.
Commercial bodies, another important issue, are at perfect liberty to apply for lottery funds. The point is not the applicant's status but the project's status. A project is eligible if it is for the general public good. It cannot, be for the benefit of the commercial body, notwithstanding the publicity that arises from sponsoring a good cause.
In considering putting together partnerships, let us lake the classic example of someone wanting to build a new eight-lane, 50 m Olympic swimming pool in his constituency. He tries to raise 50 per cent. of the funds by going to the local authority, the local community and perhaps a local sponsor, who will become involved not for commercial reasons but to make a contribution to the community's life, which would be acceptable. That has dealt with that difficult list of points.
Capital versus revenue is an important and difficult issue. The Government wisely decided that financial prudence demanded that we should not give too much revenue funding. By definition, revenue funding would mean giving out revenue costs for a project that is five years away without having received a penny for that project. That is clearly dangerous. The Government said, therefore, that they would provide the money for capital projects where they knew exactly—the British library notwithstanding—how much they would pay at the end of the day.
In considering the matter, however, it became clear that revenue funding would form an important part of projects. There is a limit to the number of eight-lane, 50 m Olympic swimming pools that one can build. It is clear that one will have to maintain such a pool, pay the electricity bills and pay people to look after it. We have therefore modified our attitude to capital and revenue. We now say that there can be a revenue tail to a capital project and that revenue money can form part of an application as long as that money is entirely consequential on the capital project. I hope that that is clear. In my mind, there is no doubt as to what we are doing. We are saying that one can ask for money to run a new swimming pool at the same time as one applies for money to build that pool.

Mr. Fisher: Does that also apply to concert halls or arts centres? There is no point in building one of those if one does not have a programme for it. Will the running costs of the programme be eligible for the revenue tail?

Mr. Sproat: Ultimately that question must be answered by the Arts Council, just as the Sports Council must decide whether the revenue tail in the example that I gave is justifiable. The Arts Council will take account of the arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned the Arts Council package, which shows that there can be revenue funding.
Since she is in her place, I shall deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. She said that the pools should be placed on an equal footing with the lottery. That is a serious point and we are considering it. I have said to the pools promoters that we shall consider it again when the lottery has had a chance to bed down. I did not say—I apologise if I gave this impression—that the people running Camelot were naive as business men. I said that they would be naive to think that, by giving the press a few titbits on the identity of a lottery winner, they could buy the press off. We all know that people who are wise in some areas can be extremely foolish in others. I do not know if that is what the people at Camelot thought. I was told that that was what they thought. If so, they were naive in their belief, although their running of the business has been exemplary.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall said that we must continue to monitor the way in which the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the other distributor bodies do their job. That is very important. The Sports Council projects taking on 43 people specially to do the lottery work. We shall look closely at the financial openness—this was the second important point made by the hon. Member for Bootle—and the accountability of the Sports Council. We shall also look jolly carefully at the projects that it chooses. I cannot tell the council what to do, but I very much hope that its wisdom will tell it that it wants a strategic plan so that we do not have three 50 m, eight-track swimming pools within a 15-mile area. I am sure that the council would not do that. It will be wisely guided by the ministerial nominees and the sports councils in the regions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), as so often in the House, gave a speech full of common sense and authority. He raised the question of counselling. Counselling is done automatically by Camelot—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With the leave of the House, I shall put motions Nos. 2 and 3 together.

Ordered,
That—

(1) at the sitting on Wednesday 11th January, the Speaker shall—

(i) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the Committee of Selection not later than Six o'clock; and
(ii) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)—

(a) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to the draft Cleveland (Structural Change) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made; and
(b) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory relating to the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) and (Transport) Orders 1994 not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been made,
and these Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and

(2) at the sitting on Thursday 12th January the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House shall lapse one and half hours after it has been made, unless it has been disposed of earlier.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That—

(1) this House do meet on Tuesday 20th December at half-past Nine o'clock;
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
(3) at Three o'clock the Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1994.

Pensions (Miners)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Peter Hain: Under the Coal Industry Act 1994, members of the mineworkers pensions scheme—the MPS—are given a legal right to transfer into its successor, the industry-wide mineworkers pension scheme. In small licensed mines, the transfer date is taken to be 24 December for members who are contributing to the MPS at that date. Under paragraph 3(3) of schedule 5 to the 1994 Act and in the Coal Industry (Protected Persons) Pensions Regulations 1994, statutory instrument No. 3070, contributing MPS members are granted the right to what is called "protected persons status". This means that contributing members of the MPS will have the statutory right to join the new industry-wide scheme and their employers will be obliged to participate and to pay contributions of about 10 per cent.
The secretary of the MPS, Mr. Paul Trickett, wrote in a letter on 1 November to one of my constituents who works in a licensed mine that protected persons status meant that
your new employer must give you the right to join the IWMPS".
He added:
For employees of small mine licensees 'new employer' means your employer after the transfer date of 24th December 1994".
Mr. Trickett has now confirmed to me, however, that a loophole in the legislation that none of us had anticipated—I was a member of the Committee that considered the Coal Industry Bill—means that some private mine owners are denying that right. Paragraph 27(e) of the Department of Trade and Industry consultation document "The Government's Proposals for British Coal Pensions after Privatisation" referred—admittedly briefly—to the rights of licensed miners. Those rights are now being betrayed.
Members of the MPS paying contributions are automatically eligible to join the new IWMPS, regardless of their employer's wishes, provided that they are members of the MPS at the transfer date. It appears that there is no formal right for employers to withdraw from the MPS, presumably because it was originally designed for the nationalised coal board and not for mines licensed under section 36 of the Coal Industry Act 1946, although the licensed mines had to maintain conditions equivalent to the nationalised industry until that stipulation was unilaterally withdrawn by British Coal in 1991, with the encouragement of the Government. Employers cannot renege on participation in the new IWMPS because of the very unusual legal right to protected persons status, which requires the employer to pay pension contributions to it. That is an admirable right.
The only way in which a private employer can circumvent the law and deny the right is to stop paying employee contributions. Apparently—though nobody seemed to be aware of it—the employer is legally able to withdraw paying employee contributions because there is no compulsion to provide a pension. No employer contributions have been made since the pensions holiday of April 1990, and it seems that some employers are determined to avoid paying the 10 per cent. employers' contribution to the new scheme because of the fierce pressures from the rigged market in coal in which they are competing.
Although my understanding is that under contract law employers cannot unilaterally alter an individual's contract, it appears that mine owners, simply by stopping employee contributions, can deny them their pension rights because they are not eligible members of the scheme at the transfer date.
It might be suggested that the miners concerned should enter into a voluntary arrangement, but voluntary contributions to maintain MPS membership are no good as they still need their employers' agreement to participate in the scheme and, clearly, that is not forthcoming.
At the end of last week, nine mine owners had given formal notice of withdrawal from the mineworkers pension scheme, but my information is that more are expected, especially in south Wales.
The two most devastating losses for the miners affected are, first, the continuance of life assurance, which produces a lump sum based on two years' average earnings to widows or dependants, together with the immediate payment of two thirds of pension. Instead of that excellent entitlement, miners who are blocked from joining the new scheme will get only a lump sum based on three times their deferred pension—a grossly inferior benefit, worth perhaps only half the current entitlement which, in any case, will erode over time because the old pension is effectively frozen, except for indexation.
The second loss—the incapacity pension, which was an important part of the old scheme—is perhaps more serious as it would assist injured or crippled miners. Members of the new industry-wide scheme would be able to carry over the rights under the MPS to trigger pension payments even if they were not aged 60. The amount would depend on length of service and grade. An injured miner would have received his pension immediately; he has now lost that right.
Injuries and deaths in licensed mines are frighteningly high. In my constituency alone, two licensed miners have died in the past two years and one has been paralysed from the waist down. Serious injuries occur weekly. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the fatality rate in private licensed mines is 23 times as high as in British Coal mines. Miners are vulnerable people, yet the Government are allowing two crucial benefits to be destroyed.
Separate insurance cover is supposed to be statutory and to provide some protection, but in practice it is not always provided. I quote, for example, the case of Mr. Huw Jenkins, who was injured after a roof fall at Nantyglo mine near Blaengwrach in the Neath valley on 26 April 1994. He suffered such severe injures that he will probably never go underground again, yet his employer, T. J. Slee Ltd., had defaulted on its insurance cover, so Mr. Jenkins is now being denied the right to claim damages and loss of earnings under that insurance scheme. After the transfer, a licensed mineworker will lose all his rights as he will no longer be a member of a pension scheme.
There are 1,400 men employed in 137 private underground licensed mines, 900 of whom are in Wales. About 400 are in the Neath constituency and are employed in 35 pits—the highest number anywhere in the United Kingdom.
The Government have penalised a special category of people who are now without adequate life insurance cover or entitlement to incapacity pension. Those rights were fought and struggled for in the bitter pre-nationalisation years and they are now being swept away.
I ask the Government for three things. First, as the ultimate guarantor of the closed mineworkers pension scheme, the Government should make provision for existing life assurance and incapacity pension entitlement to be honoured, even though the miners are not able to transfer because of the manoeuvre into the new industry-wide scheme. If the Minister replies that there is no finance available, I shall tell him that there is plenty of money in the MPS because employers had a pension holiday from 1990, which, I am informed, was actuarially calculated to go on to the year 2001. So there is plenty of money—millions of pounds—and it would only be right to give the several hundred miners who are affected by the manoeuvre the protection that could be extended from the existing MPS, even when it is closed on 24 December.
The second proposal is that the Government should next week rush through amendments to the protected persons regulations to extend protection to licensed miners who have been penalised and affected. Thirdly, the Government should instruct the Coal Authority that when it issues new licences next in March, it must make them dependent on a company being a good employer. By that, I mean, as a minimum, providing decent pensions in the industry-wide scheme, with the insurance, incapacity pension cover and so on that goes with it.
Although I have focused on the problem of licensed miners because they are the worst affected, the problem goes much wider than them alone. After 24 December, all miners could be threatened in two ways. Either employers could simply default on membership of or participation in the industry-wide scheme because they might think it too expensive, or they could sack men and then re-employ them, but only on the basis that they withdraw from the industry-wide scheme.
The Minister might say that that is not the sort of thing that happens in Britain. He should let me take him around some of the small mines in my constituency where that happens regularly. Those are the sort of raw, almost cowboy-like conditions that the Government are bringing back to our mines. It will go well beyond the small private licensed pits into the ex-British Coal pits. Indeed Tower colliery, whose buy-out I strongly supported, will not be participating in the industry-wide scheme, probably because it is too expensive and because the miners did not have continuation of employment. They are not eligible for transfer from the MPS because they will not be members of it on 24 December as they are not working until next year.
I understand that in my area of south Wales, Betws colliery, which is under a management buy-out, will not participate in the scheme. I understand that management will contribute only 1 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. employers' contribution to a generous, decent pension. The problem could go well beyond the hundreds currently affected to hundreds and perhaps thousands more miners across the country, and not simply in south Wales.
It may be said that those miners should make their own private arrangements or depend on the state earnings-related pension scheme instead. Such an invitation would be an insult because they need the collective provision provided by an industry-wide scheme, with all its vast resources, which simply cannot be offered through personal pensions alone. Indeed, for personal pensions to compete with such protection and the benefits offered would require a contribution of at least 16 per cent. and possibly more to get anywhere near meeting the current provisions and protection offered by the MPS and its successor.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Hain: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who, as a former miner, is very experienced in these matters.

Mr. Skinner: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to add to his comments about the miners who have been treated so shabbily, not only in his constituency but throughout the British coalfields. When Budge takes over with his shaky financial set-up, there are bound to be problems. It is a scandal that miners in Wales and elsewhere are being treated in this way when they have been digging coal from the bowels of the earth. When someone comes to the House from another job, as many of us do, we have the option of transferring into a very lush pension scheme, even though the pension scheme in our previous occupation was miserly by comparison. Why cannot the miners be treated in the same way as Members of Parliament?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has a good point. As he knows from first experience of when he did a much more dangerous job than he now does, the miners do a dangerous job. They have made a contribution over the years. Members of Parliament get feather-bedded pensions. That goes to show that the Government are interested only in protecting those at the top of society and that they ignore those at the bottom, particularly the wealth creators who struggle, risking their own lives and limbs year in, year out to dig coal.
The Minister may say that miners should consider taking out their own personal pension. I pointed out earlier that that would require a contribution from the employee of at least 16 per cent. That is beyond the means of miners whose earnings are low and, more important, very uncertain. Many of them do not know almost from week to week whether they will be employed. The old British Coal circumstances, in which continuity of employment was relatively guaranteed—until the Tories took over—no longer apply. Many of the miners exist in a twilight world of casual, temporary and sometimes brutal employment.
I have already exposed in the House the way in which some unscrupulous mine owners have illegally exploited their work forces, illegally denying them proper payslips, making them work the Christmas break, sacking then re-employing them to avoid paying holiday and sickness benefits and so on. That attack is even invading pension rights now.
The Government are blatantly betraying the rights to a decent pension, to life assurance cover and to incapacity benefit for miners who work in some of the most dangerous conditions in Britain. This sordid episode is a dress rehearsal for what coal privatisation means in practice. The Government should be ashamed of


themselves and of their dishonesty in failing to spell out the consequences for licensed mineworkers when they took the Bill through the House.
Coal privatisation clearly does not mean new opportunities, new hope and new prosperity, as Government rhetoric would have it. It means old misery, old tragedy, old bitterness returning to our mining communities: Victorian conditions with a vengeance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on a matter that clearly is of great concern to him, particularly as there are 35 licensed mines in his constituency employing 400 people. Therefore, it is right that he should attempt to clarify some of the issues. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him on many of the points that he raised. If I do not have time to cover all of them, I shall enter into correspondence with him to provide further explanations.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was, as usual, in his place, making life dangerous for us even at the Dispatch Box. I do not want to get dragged into the pension schemes that are available to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Skinner: It is a fair comparison.

Mr. Taylor: It is not, for purely technical reasons of the nature of the transfers, but I shall not go into that now. I think that the hon. Gentleman was attempting to make a different point, not a technical point.
Clearly, the decline in numbers of people working in mines has been going on for decades, under whichever Government. It is always important to safeguard the interests of those who will no longer be employed in the industry as well as those who continue to be employed. Many of the licensed mines have had their own separate arrangements for pension schemes for a considerable period. It is not as if it is something that has just arisen.
The hon. Member for Neath raised three particular points. I shall endeavour to deal with them in my reply. The Government have always recognised that in drawing up new pension arrangements for members of the mineworkers pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme after privatisation we should, above all, safeguard the benefits that the schemes confer on their members and their dependants.
The new arrangements for the British Coal pension schemes will achieve that in the first place by ensuring that accrued entitlements from past contributions are guaranteed within the existing schemes. An absolute guarantee from the Government will ensure that there is always enough money in the funds of the existing schemes to pay accrued entitlements. The guarantee improves previously existing provisions by guaranteeing full RPI-linked increases in pensions. In addition, members will be able to benefit from valuation surpluses. The Government have also undertaken to honour in full British Coal's obligation to make "additional contributions" in respect of early and enhanced pensions awarded from the schemes.
I will make it clear, because there has been concern over this point among scheme members, that the level of provision subject to the Government guarantee of index

linking is the amount of an individual member's pension entitlement at privatisation, including previous cost-of-living increases and improvements out of surpluses awarded before privatisation.
Members of the mineworkers pension scheme and British Coal staff superannuation scheme can leave their pension entitlements from past contributions in the existing schemes if they choose. Those entitlements will be secure and will benefit from the Government guarantee.
The arrangements for new industry-wide schemes will safeguard benefits from future employment by ensuring that British Coal employees who are transferred to new employers as a result of privatisation will be able to continue to accrue pension benefits equal to those available in the existing schemes. Employee contribution rates will remain unchanged.
The privatisation legislation gives "protected person status" to employees contributing to the existing schemes at the date of their move to the new industry-wide schemes. That obliges the new employer to give transferred employees a right to join the new scheme and ensures that benefit provisions cannot be worsened.
The new pension arrangements were established after lengthy consultations, including the issue of a consultation paper. There has been extensive parliamentary scrutiny by the House and by the Lords. The hon. Member for Neath mentioned that he played a part in that scrutiny. The arrangements were agreed down to the finest detail over several months of negotiations with the trustees of the existing pension schemes. The Government have endeavoured to keep Parliament and industry informed throughout.
The new arrangements have been welcomed in Parliament and by the existing scheme trustees as safeguarding the pension entitlements of past and present British Coal employees. The main concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman relates to the position of employees of small-mine licensees. I repeat that I fully understand his constituency interest in that matter.
Employees of small-mine licensees will be entitled to join the industry-wide scheme only if they are members of the mineworkers pension scheme at the time that British Coal is privatised in late December. In practice, many small-mine employees are unlikely to have that entitlement.
Small-mine licensees are already operating in the private sector. If they participate in the MPS, it is likely to be because until the 1980s licensees were required by British Coal to participate in the scheme. More than 120 licensed operators participated in the past, but the number has fallen to 18 through withdrawals. That is the current figure—not one that might apply between now and the date that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Taylor: I must try to answer the hon. Member for Neath, given that the Adjournment debate was in his name.
Small-mine licensees are not, of course, being privatised—and their employees, in contrast to British Coal employees, are not being transferred to successor owners due to privatisation. As existing private sector operators, those companies have the right to consider withdrawing from the mineworkers pension scheme, as in


the past. Their participation is not pursuant to any statutory obligation, although they must take due account of the terms and conditions of employment of their employees. There is no basis for the Government to force them to participate.
There has been a suggestion that the fact that small-mine licensees can choose to stop participating in the MPS represents a loophole in the new arrangements for the industry after privatisation. The hon. Member for Neath used that word, but it is not a loophole. It is only a continuation of the existing position for licensees already in the private sector. Participation in the new industry-wide scheme could not be made an obligation for the existing small-mine licensees.
A key factor underlying the issues debated today is that at present licensed operators make no contributions to the MPS because, like British Coal, they enjoy the benefits of a contributions holiday. Again, that is a point that the hon. Gentleman made. They will be obliged, however, to make employers' contributions of about 10 per cent. of employees' pensionable earnings to the industry-wide MPS if they participate in that scheme. That fact has undoubtedly contributed to recent withdrawals. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman mentioned a contributions holiday. I cannot go into the actuarial calculations, but he will know why it is that the contributions holiday in the MPS is not to be carried over to the new industry-wide scheme. That issue was widely discussed in the House.
The present contributions holiday is funded out of the most recent actuarial surplus of assets over liabilities in the MPS. The trustees of the scheme wanted the owners of the coal industry after privatisation to have no connection with it and for there to be no transfer of surplus out of the scheme to the owners. I believe that those wishes have commanded widespread support, not least in Parliament. The new arrangements comply with those wishes. It is inevitable, however, that if there is no transfer of surplus into the new industry-wide scheme, there is no basis for an initial employers' contributions holiday.
I should mention that under the original proposals put forward for discussion in the Government's original paper, the assets of the MPS would have been divided between the closed scheme for pensioners and deferred pensioners and the new industry-wide scheme for continuing employees. There would have been a bulk transfer of assets, including a share of the final surplus to the industry-wide scheme to fund the past-service entitlements of continuing employees. That would probably have enabled the new scheme to offer at least some reduction in employer contributions initially, perhaps attracting greater participation by small-mine licensees. There was, however, strong opposition to that aspect of the consultation paper proposals, from the trustees and British Coal among others. No voices were raised in support. I think that it is true to say that there has been relative silence from Opposition Members on that part of the consultation proposals during the process of discussion.
The House should not hide from the central fact that participation in the industry-wide scheme will be costly

for most small-mine operators. In reality they have therefore had no choice but to consider their position. The hon. Gentleman will accept that if we forcibly imposed a burden on them—in fact, we would not be able to do that because they are private operators—they would probably find that it would be possible to employ fewer people in the industry.

Mr. Hain: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall not give way because I want to answer some more of the hon. Gentleman's questions.
The benefit structure of the MPS has improved over time and has become relatively generous over recent years. I take the opportunity of the debate to urge small-mine operators, if they have withdrawn from the MPS, to make or facilitate satisfactory pension arrangements. I understand that many of them are considering alternative pension arrangements that seem more appropriate to their operations than the new industry-wide scheme. I am told that Betwys Anthracite Ltd., for instance, has set up pension arrangements independent of the MPS.
We hope that small-mine licensees will remain in the MPS, but we understand from the scheme administrators that more of them may wish to withdraw, and we note that fact. As I said, they should ensure that there are proper pension arrangements in place. The industry-wide MPS is likely to have between 5,000 and 6,000 members. There are only about 100 members of the MPS who are currently saying that they may not participate. The proportion may not be as great in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The main participants in the industry-wide MPS will be the privatised regional coal companies. They are better placed to take on the contribution requirements of the industry-wide scheme because they were able to factor the cost of the scheme into their financing calculations when constructing their purchase bids. The hon. Gentleman must take carefully into account the differences in size and traditions between licensed mineworkers and the regional coal companies.
Given the time that is left to me in the debate, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in detail about the various points on linkages and the disability payments that he mentioned. We understand his concerns and I also understand the specific issue that he raised about the Coal Authority. I take those points on board and shall write to the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned about those who work in the small licensed mines outside the British Coal scheme. We hope that the pension benefits will be put in place.
We accept that the hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency concern, but, overall, the pension arrangements for those who ate transferring from British Coal to the new privatised companies have been made sound. The Government's proposals for guaranteeing the scheme have met with widespread support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that, in the circumstances, he will put pressure on the individual mine owners to ensure that they make proper provision for his constituents who work in the mines.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.